Was reading one of the posts here and it reminded me of when I used to point out how democrats have such a blind hatred for Bush, that they would rather see their own country "defeated," to avoid Bush getting any "credit" for something good. Apparently things haven't changed. The same people that are quick to whip out the victim card and scream "partisan, partisan over there, partisan!" when pointing out democrat's treasonous behavior along with sympathy seeking comments like "that's not something that helps bring our country together" when their party is royally screwing up, have a much different standard for others, than that to which they hold themselves. Came across an interesting article today, written by Michael J. Totten. He's a reporter in Iraq. Anbar Awakens Part II: Hell is Over Plenty more coverage at the link along with accompanying photos. While some simply whip out the standard handbook guided by their blind hatred, there are some who actually do cover the positive things taking place when other reporters won't go there to report the "Return on Success." The "successes" that some would never admit, because they believe acknowledging it would indicate an ounce of support for Bush, are the partisan fools that cannot see beyond the politics they so often accuse others of doing. And of course, good news in Iraq means bad news for some. It shouldn't take long to spot, after I click on the "submit" button. Looks like Iraqi Muslims proved me wrong. They can live in peace and they are standing up and are fighting back. And apparently they don't want to live under an al qaida regime that some here wish upon them.
In that you commented earlier that I had looked at this thread....I'll comment. 1. I believe that Bush is giving the US with a consistent sales job with regard to the ongoing US involvement in Iraq. Return on success and Bush's subsequent speech described that he is going to remove troops from Iraq. It appears that by next Spring he will remove about 30,000 troops. This figure is totally in line with what military experts stated from the very beginning of the "surge" process. They stated that restrictions on troops would limit the time period of the "surge" build up to no more than 1 year. It also ties in with an effort to keep Republican members of Congress who have expressed displeasure with Bush's efforts in line and to keep them from aligning with Democratic efforts in Congress. That has apparently worked this September. 2. With regard to the "surge"--the increase of American soldiers in Iraq. Not only was there an increase in soldiers but they changed the character of what they were doing in the field. American soldiers dramatically increased the number of patrols in conjunction with the "surge". In many ways US forces have engaged certain Iraqi elements. It appears that most of this is being done in Sunni areas North of Baghdad, as opposed to Shiite areas. Of course Sunni areas are where Al-Queda in Iraq insurgents are located. Meanwhile there is little engagement by either American or British forces in the South, dominated by Shiites. The British have taken all their soldiers out of Basra proper, moving them into one enclave by the airport there. Currently there appears to be some kind of civil war/gang warfare between at least 3 elements of Shiite groups trying to gain dominance. Some of these Shiite groups are heavily pro Iranian. It appears neither the US or British are engaging these elements and whatever occurs will occur. Baghdad continues to suffer from some element of ethnic cleansing with Shiites gaining more dominance of territory and neighborhoods. There has been little progress in overall economic conditions. Oil flow has remained significantly below pre war levels. Daily provisions of electricity are minimal and haven't grown. Virtually none of the political goals or benchmarks as meaured by any of 3 groups has been achieved. The Iraqi central government, which was supposedly going to get a "breather" for progress on political benchmarks hasn't not achieved any substantial progress. Moreover Sadr's group of Shiite members of the central government have left the government. In the midst of these occurances, an alliance of US troops and Sunni tribesmen have had some success in prevailing over fundamental Sunni radicals such as Al-Queda in Iraq. Even as there has been some progress in this area in both Anbar and Diyala, there have been large scale attacks by this group --such as the one against the sect in Northwest Iraq (Anbar). (one of the largest such attacks with the most fatalities since Saddam's army was disbanded). The entirety of Iraq remains fully armed. There is no control of the borders. Though, American military suggested, that without any efforts of border control on their part there was a diminishment of non-Iraqi's entering the nation from Syria over the last few months. At any moment large scale fighting between any groups could reoccur. Any element of various middle East factions could spark large scale fighting between Shiites and Sunni's at any moment. As I had commented earlier about this "surge" process and the measurements and timetables that have ensued it is largely illusionary. Meanwhile, since Bush announced the "surge" are we safer or not from Islamic terrorism or the dangers of an anti-US middle eastern nation, such as Iran from promoting greater fighting anywhere in the Middle East, sponsoring terrorism anywhere in the world. I don't think so. It appears that the Taliban is slowly reestablishing itself in Afghanistan. Al-Queda appears for the time being safe in its corner of Pakistan and in fact recently declared jihad against the current Pakistani government and holders of atomic weapons. I actually acknowledge the danger of both Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups and the danger of fundamentalist Islamic nations that are arming themselves. Meanwhile Russia has reestablished its basic military strength and forces via reestablishing long range bomber missions, probably bombing the nation of Georgia, exploding an enormous non-nuclear weapon, has no levels of agreement with the West with regard to controlling the dangers in the Middle East. I see the world as more dangerous over the last year as the Bush "surge" has continued. All of Bush's politics, governance and perspective is focused on the "surge". He overstates its value, and continues to spend his energy attacking Democrats. IMHO, rather than expanding his perspective on the situation in Iraq, rather than addressing all other dangerous elements connected to mideastern dangers, Bush continues to focus all attention, all communications to the American public on the current war in Iraq. He is simply not being honest with the public. In light of all that, if you think the events in Anbar and Diyala signify "success"...then you are simply reinforcing the efforts that detract Americans and the rest of the world from serious other issues....and you continue to pursue a belief that may well be weakening America against other bubbling crises that can explode at any minute. Where I disagree is that I believe we are wasting incredible resources, both militarily and diplomatically.
I think the recent Al Jazeera English documentary pretty much undermines all of these reports about Anbar. More dangerously, we're using our enemies to do our fighting for us, which protects American lives, but also undermines the democratically elected government we set up. And of course, it also has some moral implications as people who commit and are committed to ethnic cleansing are now seen as allies and even agents of the American presence. Return on Success is just another catchphrase. Another slogan. Like Mission Accomplished, War on Terror etc. While a healthy distrust keeps growing among Americans at home, it also has the potential for disaster. It's one thing to act spuriously in the face of international criticism another thing for the government to consistently act contrary to public opinion.
Just thought I should also mention, GTech keeps talking about partisan politics. As my thread on Presidential candidates should have shown, most of the members of this thread are Republican, or at least lean to the conservative side of politics. We also make our points not along party lines, but rather, reason them out along lines of logic. I know it sounds crazy, but it's possible to want us out of Iraq, and NOT be Democrat, and not even like Democrats. In fact, I can't stand most of the Democrats running in this elections, just like I can't stand most of the Republicans running. By continually trying to make your points along these partisan lines, you make a self-fulfilling prophecy and propogate the exact thing you supposedly despise.
What the military is doing more or less if following Senators Biden plan for Iraq which calls for a weak federal government and a strong local government. Largely because of how inefficient the the federal government is why their building up local governments.
That's particularly funny, in comparison to government at home and the strength of the federal government compared to state governments.
I agree. Currently, the to-date short term results of the "surge" are seeing Iraq evolve in this direction. Should this continue....I think it would require involvement from many middle eastern nations to secure some kind of peace.