# Iraq: Should the troops be withdrawn or drastically increased? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 8, 2007, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-should-the-troops-be-withdrawn-or-drastically-increased/399165 "2007-04-08T06:22:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Lizard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dfb087/32.png) [@Lizard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lizard)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2007, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-should-the-troops-be-withdrawn-or-drastically-increased/399165/21 "2007-04-08T17:14:40Z")
[QUOTE=FRDE] @ **Lizard** Al Qaeda were not in Iraq before the invasion. [/QUOTE] I never said they were, then or now. Al-Quaida is as much of a figurehead for an entire system of belief which has it in for us in every way, a system that Iran, Syria, and significant portions of the Saudi Arabian population buy into whole-heartedly. Pulling out won’t change this any more than staying, but wholesale disaster really _will_ embolden our enemies. It already has. In this, the president is right. (Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.) Of course, what goes unsaid is that we’d never be in this position if he hadn’t put us there to begin with. It’s a no-win situation, and it IS Bush’s fault, but from here on out some options are still worse than others. Wishing for a disaster strikes me as a perfect example of someone making it easy for Republicans to wave the flag and claim their opponents hate America. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2007, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-should-the-troops-be-withdrawn-or-drastically-increased/399165/22 "2007-04-08T18:15:33Z")
First of all, I was very measured in my comments. I didn’t say the surge was ‘working’, because it’s too early to tell. I didn’t say that things were great. I said it seemed there were early signs of improvement in the security situation. Here are your cites: [ABC News - In parts of Baghdad, the ‘surge’ is working.](http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3001578) [Trends positive in Baghdad, Joint Staffs General says](http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=32646) > [@](#): > > Army Maj. Gen. Michael D. Barbero said attacks against Iraqi civilians are down about 20 percent, and civilian deaths are down 30 percent nationwide. In Baghdad, attacks against civilians are down 20 percent, with deaths down 50 percent. > > Attacks using explosively formed projectiles are also down, from 38 in December to 22 this month, though the number of attacks against coalition forces has remained constant, Barbero said. > > The Iraqi public also shows increasing signs of support, the general said. > > Officials measure the support from polling data and from the number of tips they receive from Iraqi citizens, he explained. The number of tips is increasing. > > “On 24 March, a tip from inside Sadr City led Iraqi and coalition forces to a cache inside Sadr City of more than 450 deadly anti-tank mines,” Barbero said. The general said he considers the raid especially important because Sadr City is a stronghold of support for radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr’s militia. > > He cited polling data taken March 16-22 that indicates the Iraqi people are beginning to see results. The data shows Iraqis “are hoping the security plan will last and (that it is) showing signs of improvement. Iraqis are expressing greater confidence in the security plan and in their security forces.” [Baghdad surge produces early successes.](http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=32699) > [@](#): > > Murders and kidnappings, the hallmarks of sectarian violence, have decreased in Baghdad since reinforcements of U.S. and Iraqi security forces began to flow into the city in mid-February as part of Operation Fahrd al-Qanoon, a senior U.S. military official said in Baghdad today. > “A clear reduction in the number of kidnappings and execution-style murders” has taken place across Baghdad since Fahrd al-Qanoon, or “Enforce the Law,” was launched to secure and tamp down violence in Baghdad and western Iraq, Navy Rear Adm. Mark I. Fox, spokesman for Multinational Force Iraq, said to representatives of U.S.-based veterans groups during a telephone conference call. > > There are “some preliminary good signs” that security measures are taking hold in Baghdad, Fox said, as U.S. and Iraqi forces continue to make their presence felt as they operate from 31 joint security stations established across the city. > > “Our troops now are living and operating in the districts of Baghdad,” Fox said. [Retired Top US Generals Say Troop Surge Requires Time, Patience](http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-04-06-voa15.cfm) > [@](#): > > General Richard Myers, Retired Joint Chiefs Chairman provides an encouraging numbers on the escalation of violence. > > “There’s been a 30 to 40 percent reduction in violence in the way that we measure it. That’s pretty encouraging,” he says. > > General Richard Myers, a retired former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is cautious about drawing any conclusions, but he says preliminary figures suggest the U.S. troop surge is already achieving the desired effect. > > “And for the first time, as I understand it, Iraqis are now paying for more of their armed forces training and equipment than the U.S. is for the first time this year, so there are signs here that things are on the right track,” he says. [Comments from a reporter in Baghdad](http://www.commentarymagazine.com/contentions/index.php/boot/322) > [@](#): > > Though only three of the five extra brigades scheduled to be deployed have yet arrived in Baghdad, the offensive has already paid big dividends. A semblance of normality is returning in some neighborhoods, markets are reopening, sectarian murders and ethnic cleansings have been dramatically reduced. The situation still isn’t great, but at least the downward trend has been stopped. There have been a few big suicide bombings lately that obscure this improvement, but most of these have been outside Baghdad, where the current security operation is focused. Needless to say, coalition forces can’t magically pacify the entire country overnight—and that can’t be the measure of success or failure. > > The fact that McCain was able and willing to walk around the Shorja market indicates that things are getting better, even if Iraq remains a war zone. Of course McCain had heavy security; he’s an especially attractive target for insurgents. But the market was functioning normally while he was there, and he wasn’t surrounded by bodyguards. He walked around freely without a helmet (though he was wearing body armor), and mingled with Iraqis. So did the other members of his delegation, as well as General David Petraeus, the senior U.S. commander in Iraq. [Iraqi Forces’ Efforts Improve Security in Baghdad](http://www.army.mil/-news/2007/04/06/2556-iraqi-forces-efforts-improve-security-in-baghdad/) > [@](#): > > Tangible gains in Baghdad’s security situation have been made possible in part by the cooperation of vastly improved Iraqi security forces, a coalition spokesman said yesterday. > > Maj. Gen. William Caldwell IV, Multi-National Force - Iraq spokesman, said that with 50 out of 75 planned U.S.-Iraqi joint security stations and combat outposts already in place throughout the Iraqi capital, the sustained, neighborhood-level presence is leading to an “effect that we can actually see.” Now, I’m sure Elvis will do his usual thing of posting an alternate point of view, then declaring victory, and then in the future if I say anything positive about the surge I’ll be reminded that I was ‘told’ what the truth was, and therefore I’m a liar. But there you go. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2007, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-should-the-troops-be-withdrawn-or-drastically-increased/399165/23 "2007-04-08T18:44:35Z")
Hmmm. Followed that linky, to _Commentary_ magazines Mr. Max Boot. Who advised, in the service of candor “…whose presidential campaign, I should disclose, I am advising on foreign policy…” And that golden oldie, Liberal Tedia, makes an appearance: “…the news media are more intent on ridiculing rather than reporting the first bits of good news to come out of Iraq in quite a long time…” Even as I applaud your effort to conserve electrons, you might want to make note of such in the future. For instance, your characterization of Max Boot as a “reporter” is a bit thin, candor wise. Wiki notes, for instance, his position on the editorial board of the _Weekly Standard_ (perhaps you’ve heard of it?) Describing him as a “reporter”, with its implied suggestion of non-partisan candor, is a wee bit Bushy. > **[U.S. Warplanes Attack Shiite Gunmen as Fighting Persists in City South of...](https://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/08/world/middleeast/08iraq.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)** > > American fighter jets carried out an airstrike against Shiite militiamen in the southern city of Diwaniya on Saturday. \*\*U.S. Warplanes Attack Shiite Gunmen as Fighting Persists in City South of Baghdad \*\* and, of course… [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070408/ap\_on\_re\_mi\_ea/iraq\_070408114317](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070408/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_070408114317) \*\*al-Sadr calls for attacks on U.S. troops \*\* Wow, these peace scares can be really bloody! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2007, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-should-the-troops-be-withdrawn-or-drastically-increased/399165/24 "2007-04-08T18:48:49Z")
Oh, and this… [http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070408/ts\_nm/iraq\_dc](http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070408/ts_nm/iraq_dc) \*\*Iraqis flock to city for anti-U.S. protest \*\* Still waiting on that “Boy, Do We Ever LOVE George Bush and America!” rally, are we, **Sam**? Any time now, you think? Just around the corner, perhaps? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2007, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-should-the-troops-be-withdrawn-or-drastically-increased/399165/25 "2007-04-08T18:57:11Z")
[QUOTE=Fear Itself] Yeah, the surge is really yielding positive results: [Muqtada al-Sadr declares war against American troops](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070408/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_070408114317) [/QUOTE] So your evidence that the surge isn’t working is that al-Sadr, who has been forced to flee the country, and who’s Mahdi army is fracturing, sends a note from abroad saying, “Guys, stop cooperating! Come on, kill some more Americans! But stop killing other Iraqis, 'cause that’s starting to really backfire on us.” The only thing that is evidence of is al-Sadr’s desperation. Here’s some background context for al-Sadr’s quote: [For al-Sadr, a Fracturing Militia](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/28/AR2007032802173.html) > [@](#): > > Iraq’s most powerful Shiite militia is increasingly splintering as radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr – now believed to be in Iran – faces fresh challenges to his leadership, according to senior Pentagon and administration officials. > > In the near term, the deepening divides in Sadr’s movement have contributed to a lull in fighting that is benefiting U.S. and Iraqi operations to secure Baghdad, where Shiite militia and death squads fomenting sectarian violence are considered the greatest threat to Iraq’s stability, the officials said. The article goes on to point out that the fracturing militia is not all good for the U.S. or Iraq, because sometimes it’s a lot tougher dealing with a whole bunch of splinter cells than one big organization. But from al-Sadr’s standpoint, this is certainly not a good thing. > [@Rickjay](#): > > Come ON, Sam, it’s been four years of “we’re turning a corner!” It’s time to accept the truth: > > It’s a quagmire. It’s a tough, tough situation. The odds of success are not great. I would agree with you that it is a ‘quagmire’ and unwinnable if the military was just throwing more troops at the same problem with no change in strategy. However, the strategy is fundamentally different this time. General Petraeus is supposed to be an expert on counterinsurgency strategy. He was one of the few generals to have consistent positive results in the areas of Iraq he controlled before taking over the whole shebang. The ‘Surge’ is not just about sending a few more troops to Iraq in hopes that this will make things better. The extra troops were requested to implement a proper counter-insurgency plan - one that had never been tried before. Here’s what American forces were doing before - they would sweep a neighborhood for terrorists, declare victory when the area looked secure, then retreat back into the green zone. The terrorists learned to just go to ground, wait for the soldiers to leave, and then come back. As a result, the people would not cooperate with the soldiers, because they knew that if they did, the soldiers would soon leave and they would be killed. Petraeus changed the plan. He has permanently stationed garrisons of soldiers in each neighborhood. They live with the Iraqi people, and they don’t go away. The insurgents can no longer regain control over neighborhoods. So now there are American and Iraqi troops permanently located throughout the city, providing security for the residents. Of course the insurgents are just waiting for the soldiers to leave so they can come back. However, every day that goes by and brings back normalcy to the lives of the people of Baghdad is another day in which support for the insurgency dwindles. As people come to believe that the protection they are getting is permanent, they are becoming more willing to cooperate and give up names and locations of insurgents to security forces. The number of such tips is increasing regularly. Another big change in strategy has been putting increased pressure on Iran and closing the borders. Until the surge started, the flow of arms, money, and advisors from Iran into Iraq was unchecked. Now Iran is finding it more difficult to maintain the insurgency. In addition, there have clearly been some diplomatic victories that have caused Iran to come under pressure from others. The EU and Russia in particular have begun to turn the screws on Iran a little more forcefully. Finally, the Bush Administration appears to have put the screws to the Malaki government and forced them to stop playing sides in the sectarian battle. The Iraq military seems to be more coherent and unified now than it’s been. Generals on the ground say they’ve seen marked improvement in the quality of work the Iraqi army is doing. The case of al-Sadr is an interesting one. I’ve been a skeptic of the ‘surge’ (and to some degree I still am), because I felt that the insurgents would just melt away, use the time to regroup, re-arm, and plan new strategies, and then as soon as the surge is ended they’d come back with a vengeance. However, it’s not quite working like that. Moqtada al-Sadr fled to Iran early on, which I thought was an example of what I was afraid of. He’s waiting it out. But Petraeus is a smart cookie. He took the absence of al-Sadr as an opportunity, and has been driving a wedge between al-Sadr and his followers, and using the leadership vacuum of the Mahdi army to his advantage. Take that message from al-Sadr that **Fear Nothing** used as an example of failure. It’s anything but. Here’s what al-Sadr said to his followers today (in a note from an ‘undisclosed location’): [Moqtada al-Sadr says fight in Diwaniyah is ‘trap’ by US](http://uruknet.info/?p=m31977&s1=h1) > [@](#): > > Iraq’s radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr on Sunday urged his militiamen and security forces to end their three-day-long fight in Diwaniyah, saying it was a “trap” by US-led forces. > > “He (Sadr) appeals to the Iraqi army and the Mahdi militia not to fall into America’s trap by fighting in Diwaniyah,” said a statement stamped and issued by the cleric’s office in the holy city of Najaf. > > US and Iraqi soldiers have clashed with Shiite militiamen, including from Sadr’s Mahdi Army, in the central city of Diwaniyah since Friday. > > Calling for unity against US troops, Sadr urged local forces not to support the “occupier because it is your enemy.” > > Accusing the US authorities of sowing dissent between the Iraqis, the statement said the foreign forces planned to divide the people in Diwaniyah. > > “Iraq has had enough bloodshed. The occupation forces led by the biggest evil, America, is working to sow dissent either directly or through its agents,” said the statement. Diwaniyah had been controlled by the Badr Brigades, some of al-Sadr’s boys. I guess they didn’t get the ‘go to ground and wait this out’ message, and have stood their ground. They’re being wiped out, and the U.S. and Iraqi armies are going to retake control of the area, and then stay there. The new security plan is also spreading out of Baghdad and moving into Mosul and other areas. Petraeus’s plan is actually modeled on successful counter-insurgenies elsewhere. In the very early stages, it appears to be having the results he hoped it would have. Things are slightly better in Iraq now than they were a couple of months ago. Could it all go to hell? Absolutely. Maybe even probably. Will it take time? Yes. Probably more time than the American people are willing to give. Insurgencies take years to defeat. But is it absolutely hopeless? No. Trends are positive. Things are improving. Given that the consequences of failure are so incredibly high, my opinion is that it would be extremely foolish to not continue to try, so long as the strategy appears coherent, there’s evidence that people have learned from their mistakes and are doign things differently, and conditions on the ground continue to support the belief that there is still hope. This is not Vietnam. There is no superpower helping the other side. There are not rules of engagement that prevent the closure of supply lines and reinforcements. It isn’t jungle warfare. The military is far more capable now than it was before. And it’s not a meat grinder for Americans. The U.S. is not losing thousands of soldiers a year. The war is not breaking the U.S. treasury - the economy is strong, the deficit is at historical averages and coming down. The U.S. can sustain the effort there for a long time if it needs to. There is no urgent need to pull those troops out of Iraq. Given that reality, and again given the consequences of failure. I’d support keeping there even if all they did was maintain the status quo. I’d like to ask you - what do you think will happen if the U.S. leaves? And whatever that is, why do you think it’s a preferable outcome to keeping the U.S. there? What does your cost-benefit analysis look like? What’s the plan for AFTER the U.S. pulls out? The people who advocate an immediate full withdrawal don’t like to talk about that much, so I don’t really know what the belief is. I’m honestly curious - any of you who want immediate withdrawal, please tell me what the game plan is for the aftermath. What do you think will happen? And what does America do if Iraq becomes a failed state, erupts in massive civil war, and becomes a haven for terrorists? Ignore it? Go home, close the curtains, and hope it all just gets better on its own? Or what? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2007, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-should-the-troops-be-withdrawn-or-drastically-increased/399165/26 "2007-04-08T18:59:53Z")
We might want to talk about war aims, goals, and objectives, and work our way back from there: to whether they can be achieved, and how. Possible goals: 1. Get out. 2. Whatever goal the surge has. (Surge proponents must clarify.) 3. ??? 4. Congress has adopted this goal in its recent legislation, and has funded it. We can actually achieve this goal, and the path there is clear. 5. The goal of the surge is presumably to create a space for political reconciliation. The ‘creating a space’ part may or may not be achievable (I doubt it), but political reconciliation is only achievable if the conflicting parties, especially those who think they’ve got the high cards, are interested in reconciliation. And without that reconciliation, as Petraeus has said, the rest is for naught. Evidence so far is that neither the Shi’ites nor the Kurds are interested in giving an inch to the Shi’ites, and just the other day, [Ayatollah Sistani rejected a plan to let more Ba’athists into the government](http://uruknet.info/?p=m31822&s1=h1), which doesn’t exactly help. And as numerous people have noted, the military success of the ‘surge’ to date is probably illusory. Violence has always gone down over the winter in Iraq, and picked up again in the spring. News reports suggest it’s picking up again. So are the goals of the ‘surge’ achievable? Not by us, and those who might make a difference don’t seem to be trying very hard. So let’s get the hell out of Dodge, er, Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2007, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-should-the-troops-be-withdrawn-or-drastically-increased/399165/27 "2007-04-08T20:42:49Z")
Sam, half your cites come directly from the military, which isn’t an unbiased source. They also don’t provide really anything concrete. Violence is decreasing according to the way they measure it, but no indication is given how they measure it. One of your cites says: > [@](#): > > Army Maj. Gen. Michael D. Barbero said attacks against Iraqi civilians are down about 20 percent, and civilian deaths are down 30 percent nationwide. In Baghdad, attacks against civilians are down 20 percent, with deaths down 50 percent. Which is odd considering that the death toll in Iraq increased by 15% in March compared to February: > [@](#): > > At least 2,078 people died in > Iraq last month, 15 percent more than in February despite a massive security crackdown in Baghdad, the epicentre of violence, a security official said on Sunday. > ADVERTISEMENT > > On average, 67 people died across the country every day in March, compared to 64 in February. > > A significant increase in Iraqi civilian, army and police deaths was evident last month, the official said, based on detailed statistics collected by the defence, interior and health ministries. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070401/ts\_afp/iraqunresttollmonth](http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070401/ts_afp/iraqunresttollmonth) What I’d guess is happening is that the military is cherry picking which metrics to use, and the date that they are comparing them to. This appears to be nothing more than a continuation of the past 4 years. I mean that both in terms of the situation in Iraq, and the administrations shifting proof that Iraq is going well. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2007, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-should-the-troops-be-withdrawn-or-drastically-increased/399165/28 "2007-04-08T21:04:09Z")
[QUOTE=Lizard] I didn’t/don’t support what the U.S. has done in Iraq. I think the “surge” is a glorified P.R. stunt. I think the actions of the both the president and Congress surrounding this mess have embarrassed the entire country, and I’m ashamed of them both. But what you say here is despicable. Do you think there are no consequences to what you’re saying? There’s stategic retreat and then there’s disastrous failure, and the latter should never be flippantly tossed around, as if it DIDN’T involve the deaths of our fellow countrymen and allies. It’s debatable exactly how and when to get out of Iraq, but wishing for disaster in the Middle East is cynical. [/quote] My attitude toward the deaths of our soldiers and allies : Too damned bad; they deserve it. I regard what has happened to Iraq as an act of mass murder and mass vandalism, and these are the people who did the dirty work. I feel no more sympathy for them than I would the same number of professional assassins; less, if anything. [QUOTE=Lizard] Invading Iraq was not justifiable, but how this situation is resolved _will_ have a real impact in how effectively we can pursue our enemies abroad in the future. And Al Quaida are not the Viet Cong. The Viet Cong weren’t simply homicidal, and they never tried to attack civilians on the American mainland. [/quote] And if Iraq had anything to do with stopping Al Qaeda, you might have a point. In actuality, it was a great victory for them; we killed a major enemy of theirs, hurt ourselves, and gave them a huge propaganda and recruiting tool. [QUOTE=Lizard] Invading Iraq was a major error, one that has only compounded, but that doesn’t mean something important isn’t now at stake. [/QUOTE] Certainly; what’s at stake is whether or not America will attack _more_ countries for no good reason. [QUOTE=treis] Sam, half your cites come directly from the military, which isn’t an unbiased source. [/QUOTE] Try “outright liars”. Remember them paying Iraqi media to present US military-written propaganda as news ? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2007, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-should-the-troops-be-withdrawn-or-drastically-increased/399165/29 "2007-04-08T21:25:10Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Hmmm. Followed that linky, to _Commentary_ magazines Mr. Max Boot. Who advised, in the service of candor “…whose presidential campaign, I should disclose, I am advising on foreign policy…” And that golden oldie, Liberal Tedia, makes an appearance: “…the news media are more intent on ridiculing rather than reporting the first bits of good news to come out of Iraq in quite a long time…” Even as I applaud your effort to conserve electrons, you might want to make note of such in the future. For instance, your characterization of Max Boot as a “reporter” is a bit thin, candor wise. Wiki notes, for instance, his position on the editorial board of the _Weekly Standard_ (perhaps you’ve heard of it?) Describing him as a “reporter”, with its implied suggestion of non-partisan candor, is a wee bit Bushy. [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/08/world/middleeast/08iraq.html?\_r=1&oref=slogin](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/08/world/middleeast/08iraq.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) \*\*U.S. Warplanes Attack Shiite Gunmen as Fighting Persists in City South of Baghdad \*\* and, of course… [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070408/ap\_on\_re\_mi\_ea/iraq\_070408114317](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070408/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_070408114317) \*\*al-Sadr calls for attacks on U.S. troops \*\* Wow, these peace scares can be really bloody! [/QUOTE] I should have figured you’d cherry-pick the Max Boot article. I also linked to an ABC news reporter on the ground in Baghdad. And I linked to the story about McCain being able to walk around in a marketplace in Baghdad. He also drove himself into badghad on the airport road - you know, the ‘road of death’ that was impassable without armored escort not too long ago. And I also linked to BOTH of the stories you mentioned above. You didn’t even attempt to put them into context - I suggest you read them a little more carefully. Sadr’s call for attacks is more a response to his army fracturing than anything else, and the violence in the city south of Baghdad is an Iraqi-led offensive operation. And no one said Iraq wasn’t bloody. I never said it. I never even said the U.S. was ‘winning’, or even that the surge was showing signs of ‘success’. I just said that recent trends indicate that it’s having a positive effect. And that is true. > [@elucidator](#): > > Oh, and this… > > [http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070408/ts\_nm/iraq\_dc](http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070408/ts_nm/iraq_dc) > > Iraqis flock to city for anti-U.S. protest > > Still waiting on that “Boy, Do We Ever LOVE George Bush and America!” rally, are we, Sam? Any time now, you think? Just around the corner, perhaps? Wow, I’m shocked that a radical, anti-American militia would respond to its leader’s call for protests by staging anti-American protests. What’s your point? Didn’t anyone ever claim that there was no anti-American sentiment in Iraq? The truth is that it’s a decidedly mixed bag. You can find everything from America-hating radicals in the south to America-Loving populations in the Kurdish regions. Your link is pointless. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > We might want to talk about war aims, goals, and objectives, and work our way back from there: to whether they can be achieved, and how. > > Possible goals: > > 1. Get out. Then what? Please tell me what you think will happen, and why you believe the end result will be better than what’s going on now. > [@](#): > > 1. Whatever goal the surge has. (Surge proponents must clarify.) Achieve stability. Create a cooling-off period. Reduce support for the insurgency. Get the economy moving. Give the people hope. Break the cycle of violence. Have some breathing room to train soldiers and rebuild critical infrastructure. Buy the Iraqi government time to get its security up to snuff. Will it work? Maybe not. But it’s the only game in town, since I think pulling out is a huge disaster waiting to happen. > [@](#): > > 1. Congress has adopted this goal in its recent legislation, and has funded it. We can actually achieve this goal, and the path there is clear. It is? What’s the path? Where do the troops go? Do you want to pull a Murtha and stage them someplace close? Or bring them all home? What happens if, say, Iran were to invade? Or if al-Qaida flooded into the country and started killing people en masse? Or if a large Sunni region became a haven for al-Qaida like Afghanistan was? Or if the Kurds break loose and declare independence and Turkey gets involved? Or if Iranian troops start moving across the border to ‘stabilize’ Shiite areas? What do you propose to do then? A big criticism of the war (and a valid one, IMO), was that it was carried out with inadequate plans for the aftermath. Well, the same is true for you. If you advocate pulling out, what are your plans for the aftermath? > [@](#): > > 1. The goal of the surge is presumably to create a space for political reconciliation. The ‘creating a space’ part may or may not be achievable (I doubt it), but political reconciliation is only achievable if the conflicting parties, especially those who think they’ve got the high cards, are interested in reconciliation. And without that reconciliation, as Petraeus has said, the rest is for naught. > > Evidence so far is that neither the Shi’ites nor the Kurds are interested in giving an inch to the Shi’ites, and just the other day, Ayatollah Sistani rejected a plan to let more Ba’athists into the government, which doesn’t exactly help. That’s the problem, all right. And if I saw no evidence whatsoever that there was room to fix it, I’d agree with you. But the Malaki government is showing signs of change - there seems to be a new willingness to cooperate and do the right thing. To be honest, I think the Democrats have been helpful in this regard. The public show of dissatisfaction with the way the war has gone, and the threat of removal of U.S. forces, has put immense pressure on the Malaki government. Bush’s continually saying, “We’ll stay in Iraq for as long as it takes” was basically writing the Iraqi government a blank check, in effect saying the U.S. would cover their backs indefinately why they played games and waffled on doing anything difficult. Now they’re coming to understand that the time they have to fix the country is very limited, and they’d better get back on the straight and narrow pronto or they’ll preside over a civil war. That has gotten their attention and helped change the status quo. > [@](#): > > And as numerous people have noted, the military success of the ‘surge’ to date is probably illusory. Violence has always gone down over the winter in Iraq, and picked up again in the spring. News reports suggest it’s picking up again. > > So are the goals of the ‘surge’ achievable? Not by us, and those who might make a difference don’t seem to be trying very hard. > > So let’s get the hell out of Dodge, er, Iraq. I understand your attitude. I’m sick and tired of Iraqi politicians playing games and behaving like tribesmen instead of statesmen. Every time I read about an Iraqi army unit breaking and running, or looking the other way when confronted with evidence of violence from their own people, I think “To hell with it. The U.S. should just go. It bought them enough time, and they squandered it.” The thing is, you have to be damned sure that there’s absolutely no chance to save the situation, because the alternative will be devastating to both Iraq and to world peace. So long as there is a tiny bit of positive movement and a shred of evidence that things might yet be turned around, you have to try. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2007, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-should-the-troops-be-withdrawn-or-drastically-increased/399165/30 "2007-04-08T21:29:29Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > I’d like to ask you - what do you think will happen if the U.S. leaves? And whatever that is, why do you think it’s a preferable outcome to keeping the U.S. there? What does your cost-benefit analysis look like? What’s the plan for AFTER the U.S. pulls out? The people who advocate an immediate full withdrawal don’t like to talk about that much, so I don’t really know what the belief is. In the short term (1-5 years) I’d expect to see a minimum of several hundred thousand people dead with another million internally displaced as populations shift along ethnic lines. Just a WAG. I view the U.S. pulling out as soon as possible as a good idea for the same reason, to use a poor analogy, that I’d rather suffer an intense pain for 10 seconds and be done with it than a dull pain for six hours. Iraq needs to heal and rebuild its infrastructure. They need to get their civil war and mass killings done with and move on. I agree with you in a sense though, **Sam** – if we poured in a trillion dollars, started the draft, and used an actual counter-insurgency strategy combined with stellar intelligence gathering in addition to a massive infrastructure rebuilding project we could turn it all around in a decade. But we’re obviously **not** going to do that. Hence, we fail. > [@](#): > > I’m honestly curious - any of you who want immediate withdrawal, please tell me what the game plan is for the aftermath. What do you think will happen? And what does America do if Iraq becomes a failed state, erupts in massive civil war, and becomes a haven for terrorists? Ignore it? Go home, close the curtains, and hope it all just gets better on its own? Or what? I’d hope for a civil war and then an internal stabilization as the Shia take control. If not, oh well, maybe they’ll do an attack or two on U.S. soil. Lessons learned. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2007, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-should-the-troops-be-withdrawn-or-drastically-increased/399165/31 "2007-04-08T21:35:02Z")
[QUOTE=chowder] But if we were to pull out would not this leave Iraq open to invasion by Iran? [/QUOTE] Yes. So what? That might be for the best. (Or at least I argued that in [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=402032) thread.) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2007, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-should-the-troops-be-withdrawn-or-drastically-increased/399165/32 "2007-04-08T21:39:37Z")
[QUOTE=Ryan\_Liam] The majority of citizens live in Baghdad or the surrounding areas, so therefore it’s necessary to secure this first, since most of the country lives in that area. [/QUOTE] Population of [Iraq:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq) 26 million. Population of the [Baghdad](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad) metropolitan area: 8 million. (Both figures subject to . . . revision.) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2007, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-should-the-troops-be-withdrawn-or-drastically-increased/399165/33 "2007-04-08T21:42:41Z")
[QUOTE=FRDE] @ **Lizard** Al Qaeda were not in Iraq before the invasion. [/QUOTE] Actually, they were – but only in Kurdistan, which Hussein did not control. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2007, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-should-the-troops-be-withdrawn-or-drastically-increased/399165/34 "2007-04-08T21:45:21Z")
[QUOTE=Sam Stone] Wow, I’m shocked that a radical, anti-American militia would respond to its leader’s call for protests by staging anti-American protests. What’s your point? Didn’t anyone ever claim that there was no anti-American sentiment in Iraq? The truth is that it’s a decidedly mixed bag. [/quote] But the _majority_ want us out or dead. Good for them, I say. [QUOTE=Sam Stone] Then what? Please tell me what you think will happen, and why you believe the end result will be better than what’s going on now. [/quote] After a time of chaos and mass death, some sort of stability. Which is what will happen no matter what we do; we just put off any resolution the longer we stay. [QUOTE=Sam Stone] Achieve stability. Create a cooling-off period. Reduce support for the insurgency. Get the economy moving. Give the people hope. Break the cycle of violence. Have some breathing room to train soldiers and rebuild critical infrastructure. Buy the Iraqi government time to get its security up to snuff. [/quote] None of which is possible while we are there, I believe. Our malignance, greed and incompetence mean that Iraq will remain a disaster as long as we are there. [QUOTE=Sam Stone] What’s the path? Where do the troops go? Do you want to pull a Murtha and stage them someplace close? Or bring them all home? [/quote] Bring them home. [QUOTE=Sam Stone] What happens if, say, Iran were to invade? [/quote] Unlikely to happen, and if it does they’ll simply exchange us for the Iranians. [QUOTE=Sam Stone] Or if al-Qaida flooded into the country and started killing people en masse? [/quote] Then there’ll be a lot of dead Al Qaeda. [QUOTE=Sam Stone] Or if a large Sunni region became a haven for al-Qaida like Afghanistan was? Or if the Kurds break loose and declare independence and Turkey gets involved? Or if Iranian troops start moving across the border to ‘stabilize’ Shiite areas? What do you propose to do then? [/quote] Not much we can do. Stuff like that will happen whenever we leave,no matter how long we stay, and probably if we don’t. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2007, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-should-the-troops-be-withdrawn-or-drastically-increased/399165/35 "2007-04-08T21:51:10Z")
[QUOTE=Sam Stone] I’d like to ask you - what do you think will happen if the U.S. leaves? [/quote] Civil war, most likely ending in three separate states, the most important one a pro-Iran Shia state. [QUOTE=Sam Stone] And whatever that is, why do you think it’s a preferable outcome to keeping the U.S. there? [/QUOTE] Because if we stay, the exact same thing will happen. It will just take longer and cost more lives, including American lives. Time to cut our losses. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2007, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-should-the-troops-be-withdrawn-or-drastically-increased/399165/36 "2007-04-08T22:08:54Z")
[QUOTE=Sam Stone] So your evidence that the surge isn’t working is that al-Sadr, who has been forced to flee the country, and who’s Mahdi army is fracturing, sends a note from abroad saying, “Guys, stop cooperating! Come on, kill some more Americans! But stop killing other Iraqis, 'cause that’s starting to really backfire on us.” The only thing that is evidence of is al-Sadr’s desperation. [/QUOTE] Yeah, that Sadr guy [is all washed up](http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070408/ts_nm/iraq_dc_25): > [@](#): > > Thousands of Iraqis streamed to the holy southern city of Najaf on Sunday in response to a call by fiery Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr for a big anti-American protest on Monday. > > Sadr, who blames the U.S.-led invasion for Iraq’s unrelenting violence, has urged Iraqis to protest on the fourth anniversary of the day American forces swept into central Baghdad. > > “In order to end the occupation, you will go out and demonstrate,” Sadr, who accuses U.S. forces of deliberately fomenting civil strife in Iraq, said in a statement. Sam, you really have to take off the blinders. Your questionable sources are leading you down the garden path, and no one here is buying any of it. What will it take for you to come to your senses? Surely there is a point at which even you will acknowledge that the chances for success in Iraq have gone from poor to impossible. Can you tell us what that would be? The assassination of Maliki or Sistani? Wholesale rioting pitting thousands of Sunnis against thousands of Shiites? Or would you continue to see a pony in that shitpile, no matter what events unfold? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2007, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-should-the-troops-be-withdrawn-or-drastically-increased/399165/37 "2007-04-08T22:21:59Z")
I find **Sam’s** inability to see reason on this issue especially perplexing, considering that Canada has no dog in this fight. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2007, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-should-the-troops-be-withdrawn-or-drastically-increased/399165/38 "2007-04-08T22:42:32Z")
Sam, you really need to learn the difference between “tactics” and “strategy”. You’re using one word to mean the other. The methods of inspecting houses, controlling streets, etc. is not strategic, it’s tactical. It doesn’t add up to victory bereft of an overall framework of goals and plans. The strategy isn’t to pacify a few streets in Baghdad; the strategy is to turn the whole matter over to a unified Iraqi government with the power to take over the tactical work itself. And there is no evidence whatever that the strategy is working, and no reason to believe it will. That is not, btw, a mee “alternate view” - you’re not entitled to present your own and your own bloggers’ fantasies, or PR bulletins from people who are unders orders not to say anything otherwise, as fact equivalent to the real thing, ya know, What you’re calling “strategy”, what you loudly profess to be totally changed, is nothing more than “pasting some feathers together hoping for a duck”, as the old saying goes. Ever been to a soldier’s funeral? Come on down for one sometime. Get some understanding of the magnitude of the problem. Tell the family what you’re telling us. Report what reaction you get. Otherwise, what **Der Trihs** said, and quite well too. He didn’t need to deign to reply to your fantasies about what \*might \* happen if we pull out, since anything that will happen here in the real world is already happening or beginning to regardless of how many more people we feed into “The Meatgrinder” (as the troops call it), and at your urging. But they were amusing anyway. “Or if al-Qaida flooded into the country and started killing people en masse?” was particularly hysterical, and in more than one sense of the word. > [@](#): > > If you advocate pulling out, what are your plans for the aftermath? To let the Iraqis decide for themselves what their own plans are, in the true spirit of fostering democracy (and of your libertarian ideology too, I might add). Where did you get the idea that it’s anyone else’s responsibility? **Brain Glutton** , Zarqawi changed the name of his operation (in the area \*we \* protected \*against \* Saddam) to “Al Qaeda in Iraq” shortly after the US invasion, apparently as a recruiting tool (which has been very successful, too). It does get tiresome hearing all the dire predictions about what kind of mess Iraq \*would \* fall into, how bad the civil war \*would \* be, how many of them \*would \* be killed, etc. if we withdrew. As if it weren’t that way already! Change those subjunctives into declaratives. We’re part of the _problem_, taking the strategic view instead of the tactical one. We have the power to keep Malliki from getting assassinated a little longer, at the cost of a few more dead young people every day, and he’s happy to let us do it, but that’s _it._ Yet that’s what passes for Bush’s “strategy” now. [An interesting poll result](http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=183463): > [@](#): > > QUESTION: Do you favor a withdrawal of all United States military from Iraq within the next six months? > > ANSWER: Yes 52% No 39% Undecided 9% The respondents? Likely Iowa caucus-goers - of the Republican party. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2007, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-should-the-troops-be-withdrawn-or-drastically-increased/399165/39 "2007-04-08T23:08:44Z")
> [@](#): > > …I should have figured you’d cherry-pick the Max Boot article… You could have offered a caveat, pointing out that Mr. Boot is a known conservative commentator and pundit. Instead, you chose to offer him as a “reporter”, with its implication of impartiality. Not _quite_ the done thing, don’t you know? Were you ignorant, or slow of wit, I might assume an innocent stumble from a doofus. As you have already outed yourself as a Warren Zevon fan, such acquittal is not possible, such persons being widely admired for intelligence and taste. \* Bad \* taste, to be sure, but still taste. > [@](#): > > …Sadr’s call for attacks is more a response to his army fracturing than anything else… Good because Sadr stinks. There appear to be considerable tensions between him (who wants to kill the Americans until they leave) and the “government” (if one can use so grand a word…), who are perfectly content to have Americans kill Sunni “insurgents”, and _then_ leave. They are in the happy position of being able to designate their political enemies as “insurgents” and sic the American on 'em. Our blood, our treasure, their victory. What’s not to love? But by what magic do you peer into this man’s mind and report the contents thereof? By what expertise do you presume to explain the nuances? The fracturing of his army may be good news, it may not. It may be a division between the “Hate America” faction and the “Really, _Really_ Hate America” faction. I don’t know, and I’m smart as hell. But you do? And > [@](#): > > …the violence in the city south of Baghdad is an Iraqi-led offensive operation… is a good thing why? An army leading an occupying force in an assault on its “own” people? This is a positive sign? > [@](#): > > …You can find everything from America-hating radicals in the south to America-Loving populations in the Kurdish regions. Your link is pointless… Very disappointing, **Sam**. The Kurds as an example of pro-American Iraqis? The Kurds are not Iraqi in any meaningful sense of the word, not ethnically, linguistically, culturally, or otherwise. They most adamantly _refuse_ to be Iraqi. I’m pretty sure you already know this. As I said, disappointing. > [@](#): > > …The thing is, you have to be damned sure that there’s absolutely no chance to save the situation, because the alternative will be devastating to both Iraq and to world peace. So long as there is a tiny bit of positive movement and a shred of evidence that things might yet be turned around, you have to try… No. Such certainty does not exist. We are compelled to deal with probability and feasibility. The “devastation” to Iraq and world peace has already been committed. By us. Its always going to be possible to find some faint hint of progress, it you squint enough. How is that distinct from an open-ended committment? To put the question, what would it take for you to say “Hold! Enough!”? ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2007, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-should-the-troops-be-withdrawn-or-drastically-increased/399165/40 "2007-04-08T23:10:19Z")
[QUOTE=FRDE] I would say leave - we, the UK and USA are the problem - let them sort things out themselves The longer we leave it, the worse it will get. [/QUOTE] Hot damn, **FRDE**! That’s twice in one week that you’ve managed to pleasantly surprise me. Good on you. ## Needless to say, I completely agree with your sentiments. Meanwhile in Never-Never Land, asshole supreme and US Senator to boot, Joseph Lieberman, says that Moqtada al-Sadr’s [call to arms against the Americans occupiers](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6537861.stm) is a “sign that the surge is working.” WTF is he smoking and where can I buy some? Seriously, there aren’t enough of these :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: to respond to such non-sense. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-should-the-troops-be-withdrawn-or-drastically-increased/399165.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-should-the-troops-be-withdrawn-or-drastically-increased/399165.md?page=3)