Best case scenario in Iraq

[Gunit Hussein Sangh]

Not official policy, but somewhat interesting.

Stephen Biddle is not exactly a house hold name, (so here's his bio http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/people.cfm?q=20)

So in conservative circles he is considered a first-rate military strategist and he is working closely with Gen. Petraeus about the situation in Iraq. This guy is optimistic on Iraq. Here's his opinion -- if everything goes right and if the US continues to "hit the lottery" with the spread of local ceasefires and none of a dozen different spoilers happens, then a patchwork of local ceasefires between heavily armed, mistrustful communities could possibly hold if and only if the US keeps 80,000-100,000 troops in Iraq for the next twenty to thirty years.  And that's the best case scenario of one of the current strategy's smartest supporters.

http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2007/11/biddles-best-ca.html

Come on all you big strong men.
Uncle Sam needs your help again.
Got himself in a terrible jam,
Way down yonder in Iraqnam.
So put down your ipods and pick up a gun.
We're gonna have a whole lotta fun.

[tmbtc]

I'm not buying this for a number of reasons...firstly, none of us have ever heard of this Biddle character, now we're supposed to believe he's a major player in the Iraq exit plan? I did a little looking around he seems to be a Harvard educated bookworm who is currently a professor at Columbia. Going back to his 2006 interview at Berkeley it seems he has always had a chip on his shoulder concerning the Bush Administration. Secondly, it seems you're quoting a blog as fact? And a blog with an obvious pro-Arab, leftist message it seems.

It is interesting to see what liberals see as the future of Iraq, if only to make me feel better about the plans our current leaders hold (plans which are obviously vastly superior to leaving 100,000 troops there for 30 years). Nowhere in anyone's wildest dreams have numbers like that been spoken, except apparently on the lunatic fringe. I could say I see 10,000 troops there in 5 years, but the truth is likely somewhere in-between.

What is really so disappointing to read is that it seems many liberals are eager to see the United States fail in Iraq. They've let their blind hatred for Bush overshadow their patriotism and love for this great country. I may hate Hillary but I would never let her take my country away from me.

[Gunit Hussein Sangh]

The owner of that blog is Marc Lynch who is also a member of the Council of Foreign Relations. If this was a posting at Billy Bob's blog, I wouldn't have posted it. Could you post a link to that 2006 interview you mentioned? I have a hard time believing that Petraeus would be working with anyone who has a chip on his shoulder concerning our glorious leader.

It's up to the Iraqi's to decide what their future is -- not us. Our troops there -- in any number -- is the problem -- not the solution. Just look what happened in Basra when the brits moved out. Violence went down 90%.

There is no military solution to Iraq ... only politicial. That's not my opinion. It's the opinion of every general bush fired when they wouldn't stroke his ego by telling him what he wanted to hear. It's been 30 years since I left the Navy. In all that time I have never heard so many generals speak out against a president like this.

I'm not eager to see us fail in Iraq. I'm just enough of a realist to know that we've already failed. We failed when rumsfeld rejected the army's recommendation of troop levels needed to keep the peace. We failed when we refused to turn control over to the Iraqi's after the invasion and became an occupying force. There's a documentary out (No End In Sight) that is mostly interviews of State Department and DOD folks that were on the ground in Iraq in the first few years of our occupation that details the incompetence and arrogant behavior by bush and his band of merry men. It's an eye opener if you would ever consider watching it.

It's time to get our troops out and let the Iraqi's deal with themselves. Of course, if we did that before the Iraqi's pass their oil law, US oil companies may not get those oils contracts guaranteeing obscene profits for the next several years.


 

[CHUQ]

Quote:

What is really so disappointing to read is that it seems many liberals are eager to see the United States fail in Iraq. They've let their blind hatred for Bush overshadow their patriotism and love for this great country. I may hate Hillary but I would never let her take my country away from me.


Fail?  What success then?  Defeat of AQ?  What is the success that we are trying to accomplish in Iraq?  Should Iraqis have a say in their country?

[SDML]

Well, we didn't fail in Iraq - remember? We marched in on March 20, 2003, kicked ass, and declared victory on May 1, 2003 (you'll recall the "Mission accomplished" speech).

Since we already won, I'm confused as to why anyone would view leaving as a defeat.

[Gunit Hussein Sangh]

GOOD POINT SDML!!! I hadn't thought of it from that point of view.

But you also have to be honest. We won't really be successful until Iraq passes their oil law. Everytime the adminstration talks about political reconciliation in Iraq, getting  the oil law passed is the first, and sometimes only, thing mentioned.

What do you expect when you elect oil men to the whitehouse?

And it's One, Two, Three
What are we fighting for (oil)
Don't ask me I don't give a damn (oil)
Next stop is Iraqnam.

[tmbtc]

The owner of that blog is Marc Lynch who is also a member of the Council of Foreign Relations. If this was a posting at Billy Bob's blog, I wouldn't have posted it. Could you post a link to that 2006 interview you mentioned? I have a hard time believing that Petraeus would be working with anyone who has a chip on his shoulder concerning our glorious leader.

Right, and Marc Lynch is an associate professor at GW and a definite takes a very liberal view of just about everything. If you don't believe me, take a look at this interview in Harper's (did I mention he was a liberal!)...I don't read Harper's and this reminds me why. It's trash, not even just liberal trash but just trash.

It is absolutely absurd the way he goes through each question. You can read the article yourself, but when asked questions like, "What's your opinion of the surge?", he admits violence is down, but that we shouldn't measure its success that way. He pooh-poos the turn in Iraquis public perception against Al-Queda, saying "A lot of people have interpreted this as a sign of American strength, that the Sunni tribes are shifting to the winning side. It’s actually just the opposite, it’s a defensive reaction by Sunnis to Al Qaeda’s increasing strength and aggressiveness." OK, enough ranting...

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/05/hbc-90000092

The interview with Biddle is here:

http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people6/Biddle/biddle-con0.html

(it was easy enough to google as you like to say)

And until you can provide a link that is from a real news organization, I don't believe Biddle is telling Petraeus how to manage his war. Or rather, I have no doubt Biddle is telling Petraeus what to do, I just don't see Petraeus listening to him.

[tmbtc]

Quote:

What is really so disappointing to read is that it seems many liberals are eager to see the United States fail in Iraq. They've let their blind hatred for Bush overshadow their patriotism and love for this great country. I may hate Hillary but I would never let her take my country away from me.


Fail?  What success then?  Defeat of AQ?  What is the success that we are trying to accomplish in Iraq?  Should Iraqis have a say in their country?

Random? Questions? Do you want fries with that?

I have no idea what you are asking me, or what you are attempting to say. We have removed a dangerous dictator and threat to American interests in the Middle East and abroad, and are installing a more stable system of government composed of Iraqis. Said government will be to the benefit of both Iraq and the United States. It's not that hard to figure out.

[tmbtc]

Even the New York Times is saying the Surge is working, look at this article from today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/world/middleeast/20surge.html?ex=1353301200&en=9ff5d105a6c6eca7&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

I think I've reached my quota of linking liberal news for the day...

[Vermouth]

I'm grateful for some (any) good, positive, hopeful news coming out of Iraq. Ignoring for a moment the issues of motivation and foreign policy, the US did a good thing in removing a dictator, but left a power and infrastructure vacuum. A lot of fanatical groups from inside and outside Iraq took advantage of that. But before all this happened, Iraq was a successful secular 2nd world country with a sizable middle class and a good education system, quite different from other countries in the region, especially Iran. I'm just speaking of the population, not defending the government that was in place. The people who are left there now grew up in a modern civilized society and it was a decent life (if you didn't oppose the regime) - they don't want to be governed by religious fanatics. The fact that the US military was finally able to defeat Al Queda in Baghdad (even though it was they who let them in in the first place) is wonderful. The current political leaders in Iraq appear useless but just a little good news renews my faith in the population.

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

iraq was a successful, secular nation??  iraq under saddam: waged a 10 year war on iran killing hundreds of thousands.  invaded kuwait, literally set the country on fire precipitating the gulf war.  defied all of the terms of  the subsequent amnesty including firing on us planes, refusing wmd inspection, maintaining clandestine         
chemical/bio program and with the help of the un used the oil for food sanction to actually prop up his regime.  further saddam supplied training and logistical support for terrorists.  it is no doubt true that there is a sizable and reasonably educated pop that is not desirous of islamofascist rule and that within this pop lies some hope for a representative  govt within iraq.  the ramifications of such an outcome with regard to regional and world security can not be overstated. 
                         

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

well gunit i actually saw the movie you refer to "no end in sight".  i would say that it was informative but not necessarily objective.  clearly mistakes were made particularly in the areas of troop level, martial law and disbanding the iraq military.   the movie cites multiple state dept sources which it seems to me have been engaged in an internal struggle with this administration from day one.  likely a little cya motivation as well.  found richard a interesting given his part in the plame kerfuffle.  the un was surprised that  this administration did not want or trust them??  movie stops well short of the surge and its relative success.  this is in no way a defense of the prosecution of this war.  just found the movie to be more than a little slanted.  you must have loved it!

[Gunit Hussein Sangh]

Vermouth was right. Iraq was one of the most secular Islam states in the world. There are few Islamic countries where Islamic women are allowed to dress in western garb, were they are educated and treated as equals, not property. Heck, Saddam's top biological weapons expert (trained in the U.S.A of course), was a women.

Not trying to excuse Saddam's war with Iran, but at least he had a good reason for starting the war. Remember that was back in the days of the ayatollah who over-threw our good buddy the shah, who ran a brutal sadistic dictatorship that made Saddam's look like kindergarten for 30 years, but he sold us oil so it was OK. After he was overthrown the Iranians made attempts to overthrow Saddam and spread their Shia faith into Iraq. That's when he started waging war. What would bush do if Mexico tried to overthrow him? Continue reading My Pet Goat?

When Saddam was in danger of losing, St. Ronnie (along with our allies) came to the rescue in the early 80's and sold him the technology and precursors to make chemical and biological weapons. And oh yeah, we gave him satellite intelligence showing Iranian troop positions so he could better target those troops.

And on your comment that it is no doubt true that there is a sizable population in Iraq wanting a representative govt in iraq -- where's the beef 

I truly am glad you watched the movie. But you're wrong about one thing ... I didn't love it. I am appalled by the incompetence and indifference to human life demonstrated by this administration. They deliberately appointed people with absolutely no experience in the activities they were tasked with accomplishing and their main goal was to shovel tax payer money into the hands of campaign contributors with no audits or bids. They deliberately broke the law and the Geneva Conventions in the way they arrested and tortured Iraqi's. They deliberately treated Iraqis as sub-humans.

And all because acquisition of oil is such a grave matter of national security.

My country is better than that.

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

Not trying to excuse Saddam's war with Iran, but at least he had a good reason for starting the war. Remember that was back in the days of the ayatollah who over-threw our good buddy the shah, who ran a brutal sadistic dictatorship that made Saddam's look like kindergarten for 30 years, but he sold us oil so it was OK. After he was overthrown the Iranians made attempts to overthrow Saddam and spread their Shia faith into Iraq. That's when he started waging war. What would bush do if Mexico tried to overthrow him? Continue reading My Pet Goat?

/quote]

you are so obviously twisted with hate for this prez that you will say and excuse anything.  not tryiing to make excuses for saddam??  yet that is exactly what you do.  gotta say your pitch to now is touching. the war just an opprotunity to "shovel tax  payer money"  to bush cronies?  but the realities of post 9-11 mean nothing to you. have you even read the geneva convention?  if so how does it apply to terrorists??  what torture of iraqis on our part?  do you hate this prez so much that you'll smear our service men?   following proudly in the footsteps of kerry, mutha et al...  again 70% of eligible iraqis participated in their elections.  did 50% of voters take part in our last presidential election?  is the maliki govt any more disfunctional than our own?  where is your beef?  will your moral indignation be heard should we leave precipitously and predicted conflagration occurs?  like lassy to timmy you always come home to oil.  are you running the heat at your house?  did you drive to work today?  will you commit to this country exploiting its own natural resources?  do you really fail to recognize that energy is a national security issue, in fact maybe the national security issue for this nation in the 21st century?   no one argues that the prosecution of this war was fubar.  still we are there with much to be lost and much to be won.   don't be afraid to let the military win this war for we will only lose if we choose to do so.  just curious, how many different languages can you say i surrender?


   

[Gunit Hussein Sangh]

You were right about the numbers of Iraqi’s voting. I apologize for that remark. I should have checked before making it. I was thinking more of the way they are acting now. All three religious sects in the country pretty much hate each other and want nothing to do with each other.

If you wish to justify the invasion of Iraq by using Saddam’s past aggression against Iran, which the United States supported and assisted, go right ahead. The world rightly kicked his butt when he invaded Kuwait to capture THEIR oil, but since we’re the “good guys” it’s OK when we do it, right?

Just because I use gas, that doesn’t mean I support an illegal invasion to ensure we can get our oil “fix.”

Your cute sound bite of surrender is meaningless, again. I have one question for you. Who’s going to volunteer to fight this unending war in Iraq that you support?

Enlistments are way down. The only way they could meet last year’s goal was to offer huge bonuses and now people are learning that if you do something stupid, like get your leg blown off and can’t return to active duty, you may not be entitled to all the money. Waivers for drug use, criminals, health & mental problems are at an all time high. Many folks who considered making the military their career are leaving, when they can. Heck even career military guys are encouraging their children NOT to enlist.

There’s never a shortage of volunteers when the cause is just, like after 9/11. Patriotic Americans flooded the recruiting offices and had to be turned away. Now they are staying away. They obviously don’t share your enthusiasm to kick arab butt. I especially wonder were the volunteers are from the Americans who support bush’s war in Iraq. Where are they?

And if you don't like my criticism of our glorious leader ... tough ... I feel the same way about conservatives trying to place the blame for 9/11 on the Big Dawg.