Irrelevant Ad Hominems aside, Michael Yon has been in Iraq for many years and is seeing it up close and personal. Also, what he is saying is consistent with pretty much everything I’ve been reading on the topic.
What interests me the most is the Awakening Council and the recognition that De-Baathification was a big mistake, something I’ve been saying for years.
I’ve always been opposed to this war, but I think this warrants more attention than the ad hominems it is being treated with.
It’s sort of interesting, I’ve brought up the Awakening Council in threads here before, and people generally do not mention a word about it. It’s the most interesting part of the topic to me, a sea change in policy from dealing with manufactured parties to the traditional tribal roots. As it says in the article, the tribes have power as tribes first versus the newer religious organizations. It’s interesting that the Iraqi people are snitching on Al Qaeda. I’ve heard this from more sources than just Yon.
I pointed out why the opinion is worthless, when he ignored many of the recent problems. I do not think that was a coincidence. It is hardly an Ad Hominem when you show why it can be against him, and you continue to ignore that it remains an opinion piece.
I knew that already, my point before was that they would be more effective in getting rid of Al Qaeda if the US was not there anymore.
And Bush will do anything constructive with Iran? As the Basra incident show it is pure propaganda to say that we or the puppet government in Iraq are in complete control of the situation.
I know it’s an opinion piece. I don’t think anything has really been ‘shown’. You posted an interesting article about what happened with the government and the Shi’ite areas, but that’s not what he was talking about. He was talking about the Awakening Council which is a SUNNI thing in SUNNI areas, fighting Al Qaeda. Your article is an interesting addendum, but it doesn’t toss what he writes out the window. The Awakening Council in conjunction with the surge has presented a much better strategy that is making some headway.
Maybe, maybe not. Prognostication is more art than science.
Yeah, it would be. It’s a good thing nobody posted any articles claiming that. I don’t think Bush will do anything constructive with Iran, but I think Obama will.
Don’t have much time, but I remember seeing a very recent article that showed those Awakening councils are ready to drop us as soon as money fails to come their way. In fact some groups rebelled just last month when the US missed some payments. So much for the confidence in the American troops.
This article came a few months before that took place:
On the other hand we have to trust that the prognostication that more of the surge will work…
Well, I didn’t see my posting of an article as a command to believe it or anything, but if you feel compelled to believe it, I admire your skeptical resistance.
Looking back, it is clear that we agree on this point. However it can not be excluded from the big picture, part of the surge plan (a Bush idea still to this day) is to attempt to keep Iran out.
That part remains a fairy story, and one big element on why I do not think the surge will work as is stated by the current proponents of it.
I meant to say actually (and I admit I did not type what you replied to properly) that you are more willing to believe in the prognostication that more of the surge will work as per the opinion piece. The author ignores so much and on purpose that the piece does not merit even the title of “being interesting”. It is a propaganda piece.
We are asked to believe this will work by once again ignoring the true situation on the ground, as in the past when many opinions before predicted flowers or ponies for the US.
Cynically speaking, I see the surge so far as just an expensive and misguided sand bag effort to keep a failing dam in place just long enough to assign the blame to the next president when the dam fails.
Another problem with the opinion piece is that the writer blatantly ignores that Abu Grahib was just outsourced to the locals. (What magical power the author thinks prevents the locals from noticing the ongoing disappearance, torture and imprisonment of Iraqis by Iraqis and the US not doing much to prevent that, he does not say)
Death squads are rampant in Iraq and, as in El Salvador, sure they can get the situation there to become more peaceful (courtesies of “the ostrich” (what death squads in Central America?) Negroponte). :rolleyes:. I was not born yesterday, I do think there is a lot of death squad activity that is being allowed in Iraq right now and it is a travesty to me that some are claiming now that peace is happening just because of the surge or factions deciding not to point their guns at the US.
The problem is just that in the end that and the surge are not the solution to find peace in Iraq, because the factions will remain even more divided. A local peace treaty that will involve more Arab nations (and even Iran) and the UN with as little or no intervention from the US will be needed to end this foolish occupation.
To what end? Let suppose we accept that conditions in Iraq have improved, that they have improved to a state of “not good” from a condition of “utterly wretched”. Is this, then, a stepping stone on the path to “victory”? A rough form of truce between armed and hostile camps? Or, worse case, a temporary lull while the hostile parties rearm? Have we any basis for making a judgment?
As to the sympathies and observations of embedded reporters: they are sympathetic to the men they are embedded with, the shared experience of being under fire is one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful, forger of bonds between men. Naturally, they sympathize with the men they are embedded with.
It is entirely natural for men who make such daunting sacrifices to insist on believing that they are doing the right thing, and it is worthwhile. They wouldn’t be human if they did not so believe. We can reasonably expect, therefore, that embedded reporters will be sympathetic to their views, and would feel a sense of betraying comrades if they offered negative reports. Indeed, one can reasonably expect their viewpoints to be unintentionally biased, they report what they see, but the viewpoint is skewed.
But keep in mind, that view is very narrow, it is confined to the immediate and the present. Sympathy for the grunts on the ground is natural, even admirable, but it has squat all to do with the giant international gears that are grinding.
If you are about to tell me that things are improving, that we are closer rather than further from success, I must ask: what is victory? What will we win, when we win? Surely the vision of a united, federal Iraq that firmly supports US policy…surely this mirage has dissolved? We can’t still believe this, can we?
I did and you’re wrong – if you’re thinking Jan '08 anyway. That report, just made public, was done shortly after the first Friedman Unit of The Surge.
BTW, why keep calling it “The Surge” when it’s become quite clear your (additional) guys are going no where? Not under your current regime anyway…
Using sources from various organizations including the Brookings Institution, the State Department, the Associated Press, The New England Journal of Medicine and the United Nations, five key indicators for Iraq are plotted against a timeline showing the various phases of the war. Look at that and tell me the surge isn’t having an effect.
U.S. casualties rates are now at the lowest they’ve ever been during the war. So are Iraqi civilian deaths. Oil production is growing and is past pre-war levels.
But is the surge doing what it was promised to do, which is to provide breathing space to allow politican reconciliation to take place? Is there any progress on the political front in Iraq?
As for what the Iraqi people think, here is a new poll of Iraqi opinions from March 2008. Although the numbers clearly show that life is tough in Iraq right now, there is no doubt that the public is feeling better since the surge and the mood of the country is lifting somewhat.
There are some rather interesting results in that poll. One is that only 27% of Iraqis think the war was absolutely wrong, down from 34% before the surge. The number who think it was somewhat right or completely right has risen from 37% to 49%. 62% of the country now rates security “Quite Good” or “Very Good”, up from 43% before the surge. 82% of Iraqis also think security will continue to improve. More Iraqis now want a central government than before the surge. Even opinion of the U.S. military is improving, with more Iraqis have some or a great deal of confidence than at any time since immediately after the war. The opinion of the U.S. military is going up in Iraq. Before the surge, 53% of Iraqis strongly opposed the presence of coalition forces. That number has dropped to 41% (still very high, but improving).
So… violence is down, the economy is up, there is progress on the political front, and the public is starting to feel better. There’s a long way to go, and lots of bad stuff could still happen. But it’s hard to deny that progress is being made.
As to what would happen if the U.S. just pulled out… Have a look at what happened in Basra when the British left.
Look, you can blame Bush all you want for the war. You can honestly believe he lied and screwed up big time and hurt the U.S. if you want. But that war is OVER. Abandoning Iraq isn’t going to make it go away. The question you are faced with now is simply, “Given that we’re where we are, and forgetting about why, what is the best course of action from here on in? What is best for the Iraqi people? What is best for the security interests of the United States?”
There is no doubt that some sort of soft landing may still be possible, which leaves Iraq a functioning economy with some fairly good ties to the United States. If such a soft landing happens, public opinion of the U.S. in Iraqi will grow. After the coalition forces leave, it’s quite possible that Iraq could turn into a reasonable ally of the United States. That’s maybe a long shot, but even a mildly hostile, mildly authoritarian state would be better than the alternative.
If the U.S. leaves, it seems to me that you’ll see first a rise in criminal activity, then revenge taking, then tribes and religious groups will begin fighting for power. Moqtada al-Sadr will grow immensely in power and draw in Iran. In short, there could well be a civil war, genocide, and spillover into neighboring countries.
Is your fervor to end the war so strong that you just don’t care? I can honestly understand believing that withdrawal was correct when things were going to hell. You could plausibly make an argument either that the disaster was unavoidable and the war lost, and therefore it was time to admit defeat and cut your losses. But how can you say that when the numbers clearly show that things are getting better? There’s a glimmer of light on the horizon. Casualty rates and violence are continuing to fall. al-Qaida is being smashed. Does none of that matter?