Now that is clearly an overstatement.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/world/middleeast/04iraq.html?ref=world A big chunk of Maliki’s army would not fight against Sadr. They performed poorly again after a huge waste of training and arming. The stories of the Iraqis we have trained failing or quitting have persisted since the beginning.What is there that gives hope? Patraeus said nothing that couldn’t be predicted. Did anyone think he would say they failed? Not without getting fired.
Oh? Then all those reports about al Maliki’s boys making like surrrender monkeys, all a bunch of lies? Defeatist propaganda?
But that aside, this development gives me a thought. I wonder if the Iranians are offering us an out? A face saver and a ticket home.
Consider: it has been long known that the Maliki government has close ties to Iran, as does his Badr Coalition. If Iran has made a choice, they may be offering a solution. Sort of.
They will back al-Maliki’s government to encourage elections, elections that will almost certainly cement their influence if the rival Sadrists are in disarray. Being a legitimate election, we can hardly complain. Especially since we have spent so much blood and treasure protecting al Maliki from “insurgents”.
All we have to do is accept their assurances that the Sunni will be justly and fairly dealt with (and they might indeed, with so many Sunni nations looking on…), the Kurds will remain unmolested, and a stable government established. The part about being a loyal ally in the War on Terror can even be fostered, Al Queda and Iran are…not friendly.
What do we get? Well, the Bushiviks get to declare victory and run for the helicopters. Stable government? Check. Democracy? Check. Oil being sold? Check. Iran’s hegemony held in check? Well, three out of four ain’t bad.
And the money shot? The public may never even realize how thoroughly we’ve been buggered. Not, at least, until the next American elections are safely past.
Cost is always an issue.
As your own article states, that is about 4 percent of the total of the fighting force.
This is a young government with new policies, constitution, security forces, etc.
With all the factionalism that occurs within the Middle East at large and Iraq in particular, 4% sounds about right.
I’ve got a $1000 toilet seat to sell you.
I rather doubt that’s what he meant by “cost”. Could be wrong.
Possibly, I was being intentionally disengenuous.
I’d rather view “cost” in terms of lives lost, families broken, horrible injuries sustained than dollars. And I do. I am a former member of the US Armed Forces, as were every other single male person in my family with the exception of my brother and a couple cousins.
And I am not just talking American lives here. War is horrible and detestable at best, and I am glad that my tail-end involvment in the Gulf War in 1991 was temporal.
But at this particular point in this war, the costs have become so enormous that a few more dollars isn’t a drop in the bucket. That was my point. Especially if spending those extra dollars is actually counting for something.
SamStone’s post previous isn’t getting much mileage in terms of what the surge really meant, which was as much or more a tactical change as an increase in manpower.
Lot’s of righteous Americans would love to say that to his face it appears. The real question is, why don’t they? Untouchable for seven years.
Hmmm…couldn’t possibly have anything to do with him being a native and you the invaders now could it?
“Walk a mile in his shoes and he will turn into an American. Or else…”
Not a particularly pragmatic slogan, but then again, we must remember that you work with the army you have not with the one that you need and that some Americans can create their own reality
Must admit, Rumsfeld left quite a legacy. And a new form of communication to boot.
Fun stuff. If you don’t happen to be in the front-lines that is.
Well, I was in the front lines, so I can speak from experience. Seven years? How many of those were him being a relative fringe element as opposed to the “importance” he apparently thinks he deserves now?
Hell, even Saddam Hussein mocked him right before he was hanged.
Quite simply, the guy is a religious figure with a quasi-large following that heeds the beck and call of his Iranian handlers. And suprise! His followers are heavily armed.
I really don’t feel like stating the obvious creates an aura of “self-righteousness” about me.
Believe me when I say I wish the war (and any war) was over and we as human beings could find some other way to resolve our differences.