# Rumsfeld's Iraq Options in Leaked Memo **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 2, 2006, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-iraq-options-in-leaked-memo/382617 "2006-12-02T21:37:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2006, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-iraq-options-in-leaked-memo/382617/41 "2006-12-04T03:22:15Z")
[QUOTE=Squink] Sure, lets ask ourselves how much worse things will get if we spend a couple years propping up what is already a minority government, and training and equipping its troops to battle the Sunnis and Kurds… [/QUOTE] It would be hard to describe the al Maliki admin of being a _minority_ party. In fact, that is one of the ugly twists to this story: the Shia have every right to rule, as a majority in the recently minted democracy. From here it appears that the al Maliki admin is riding the tiger of trying to appease the Shia while oppressing the rebellion of the Sunni. If he wants to impress the Sunni with the sincerity of his guarantees, he would arrest the most public leader of the radical Shia movement, Muktada al Sadr. He would be well advised to have his worldly affairs in order before he makes such a move. About the only hope, however dim, is that someone in Iraq has the personal authority and charisma to pull a Ghandi. Like I said, however dim. Perhaps more along the lines of a Mussolini, you can rest assured this prospect is being mulled over by any number of military men in Iraq, even as we speak. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2006, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-iraq-options-in-leaked-memo/382617/42 "2006-12-04T03:29:43Z")
It wouldn’t get to that. Sadr leads a party in the Parliament itself, actually a vital part of Maliki’s coalition. If Maliki were to fail to do what Sadr wants, he just wouldn’t be PM anymore, to whatever extent that means anything anyway. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2006, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-iraq-options-in-leaked-memo/382617/43 "2006-12-04T03:37:20Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] The question for anyone that is still sanely looking at this is: given that staying and going both have horrible consequences, which is worse? A lot of you folks seem to think the answer to that is clear. I don’t know where you’re getting that confidence. [/QUOTE] How about reality? [FACTBOX-Security developments in Iraq, Dec 2](http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L02104286.htm) Note the number of deaths in “the American stronghold,” Baghdad. [Dozens killed in Baghdad blasts](http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F91ABD46-25A4-44DC-A7F9-16CE72C93603.htm) [Death squads roam Baghdad’s hospitals](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2483899,00.html) [Annan: Iraq in civil war, worse than under Saddam](http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03431252.htm) [Iraqi Army division deepens discord](http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16150223.htm) What happens when you pick sides. [Saturday: 187 Iraqis, 1 GI Killed; 83 Iraqis Wounded](http://www.antiwar.com/updates/?articleid=10096) Yep, no doubt Iraqis just love the security you’re providing them with, what with those headlines being merely daily echoes of one another. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2006, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-iraq-options-in-leaked-memo/382617/44 "2006-12-04T03:48:29Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] It would be hard to describe the al Maliki admin of being a _minority_ party. [/QUOTE] He needed Sadr’s group for a majority in parliament. The Sadrists are making their return to the government contingent upon several demands: > [@](#): > > A senior Sadrist legislator, Baha al-Aaraji, said the group would end its boycott when there was an increase in what he termed well-trained Iraqi security forces and the government ends the chronic shortages of basic services like electricity and fuel. [Al-Maliki faces boycott by allies](http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/30/africa/ME_GEN_Iraq.php?page=2) > [@](#): > > Al-Sadr’s group said it will resume government participation when al-Maliki comes up with **a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal**. It also wants better security and improvements in infrastructure. [Al-Sadr bloc talks of alliance with Sunnis, Christians](http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/30/iraq.politics/) Maliki is toast if the Sadrists come to an accommodation with one of the other groups. He _may_ be done even if that does not happen. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2006, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-iraq-options-in-leaked-memo/382617/45 "2006-12-04T04:15:21Z")
[QUOTE=Squink] Maliki is toast if the Sadrists come to an accommodation with one of the other groups. He _may_ be done even if that does not happen. [/QUOTE] Yep. I do believe that is one of those “known unknowns.” Or an “unknown known”? Who knows? But it surely isn’t an “unknown unknown” that Maliki’s Gov depend just as heavily on anti-American Shiite factions as he does on American forces to remain in power. That’s not merely dancing on the edge of a sword, he’s off the plane at 30,000 ft without a parachute. Only a matter of time before gravity does its thing and he splatters like a squished bug. A Government with no power is exactly the same as no government at all. Anarchy rules. Take a look at Iraq for a perfect example of same. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2006, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-iraq-options-in-leaked-memo/382617/46 "2006-12-04T04:23:55Z")
[QUOTE=RedFury] How about reality? [/QUOTE] I’m sure you’re right. It couldn’t possibly get worse than it already is. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2006, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-iraq-options-in-leaked-memo/382617/47 "2006-12-04T04:35:55Z")
Speaking of the army we’re training making things worse: [Iraqi Army division deepens discord](http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16150223.htm) > [@](#): > > The overwhelmingly Shiite Muslim military force at the forefront of U.S. and Iraqi plans to secure one of the nation’s most fractious provinces is accused of arresting hundreds of Sunni men on little or no evidence, threatening to rape a suspect’s wife to coerce a confession, and intimidating its commander’s critics, according to interviews with Iraqi and U.S. officials. > … > While a U.S. military statement said the weekend operation shows the “commitment of Iraqi army officers and soldiers to protect and secure the people,” local residents and Sunni leaders point to the Iraqi division’s track record as one of the chief problems plaguing the restive Diyala province north of Baghdad. Rumsfeld said he wanted to beef up MOD and MOI, and speed equipment transfer to these guys, but no one seems to have a plan for how to keep these shiite troops from going Rambo. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2006, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-iraq-options-in-leaked-memo/382617/48 "2006-12-04T11:13:56Z")
[QUOTE=Ryan\_Liam] Rubbish, sounds like a holding action. Placing troops on the borders of two protagonists whilst whoever in Baghdad is in charge gets their shit together. Vietnam had linebacker, and the Christmas bombings, Iraq gets this. [/QUOTE] And Vietnam worked out how precisely? ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2006, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-iraq-options-in-leaked-memo/382617/49 "2006-12-04T11:32:14Z")
[QUOTE=Squink] Speaking of the army we’re training making things worse: [Iraqi Army division deepens discord](http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16150223.htm) Rumsfeld said he wanted to beef up MOD and MOI, and speed equipment transfer to these guys, but no one seems to have a plan for how to keep these shiite troops from going Rambo. [/QUOTE] This is the reality the head in the sand people ignore. There are no ISF or police. Just militias in disguise getting training and weapons. Have people not been following events? Police fighting with ministry guards. One ministry attacking another? Police death squads. Army death squads. And now Rummy proposes embedding spies in coalition units! Brilliance. Sheer brilliance. There is nothing whatsoever the US or the UK can do now. We are the acted upon, not the actors in the situation. And now one of our resident pony-hunters cites Vietnam with a straight face. Vietnamisation - that sure worked out well didn’t it? I posted a link in another thread to an intelligence report that surmised the insurgency is self-supporting with an income of hundreds of millions of dollars from internal iraq rackets. Outside agitators and funding is just an excuse. All of them hate us and want us gone, with the limited exception of the Kurds. The government can’t even stop its own ministries attacking each other let alone do anything at all about the insurgency. And Maliki holds power at the grace and favour of sadr’s mahdi army and loyal politicians (who have walked out in protest at him meeting Bush, remember.) If it all wasn’t so tragic it would be funny. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2006, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-iraq-options-in-leaked-memo/382617/50 "2006-12-04T15:01:47Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] You’re confused. No one here is arguing that the Iraq War has not been a catastrophe. The extent to which Bush has not accepted that is irrelevant to this discussion. I’ll ask again, though I don’t expect an answer: you think we should pull out even if it means letting Iraq slip into full-scale genocide? [/QUOTE] It can reasonably be argued that upon the death of Saddam, Iraq was heading for something like what an American pullout would cause. The only reason the US ever supported Hussein was that other, less stupid Presidents, listened to their other, smarter advisors who said Hussein, bad as he was, beat the alternative. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2006, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-iraq-options-in-leaked-memo/382617/51 "2006-12-04T15:42:43Z")
And while people are praying for ponies they can read this. [Anbar picture grows clearer and bleaker](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/27/AR2006112701287.html) > [@](#): > > The U.S. military is no longer able to defeat a bloody insurgency in western Iraq or counter al-Qaeda’s rising popularity there, according to newly disclosed details from a classified Marine Corps intelligence report that set off debate in recent months about the military’s mission in Anbar province. > > The Marines recently filed an updated version of that assessment that stood by its conclusions and stated that, as of mid-November, the problems in troubled Anbar province have not improved, a senior U.S. intelligence official said yesterday. “The fundamental questions of lack of control, growth of the insurgency and criminality” remain the same, the official said. > [@](#): > > The report describes Iraq’s Sunni minority as “embroiled in a daily fight for survival,” fearful of “pogroms” by the Shiite majority and increasingly dependent on al-Qaeda in Iraq as its only hope against growing Iranian dominance across the capital. > [@](#): > > Between al-Qaeda’s violence, Iran’s influence and an expected U.S. drawdown, “the social and political situation has deteriorated to a point” that U.S. and Iraqi troops “are no longer capable of militarily defeating the insurgency in al-Anbar,” the assessment found. > [@](#): > > But the contents have not previously been made public. Read as a complete assessment, it paints a stark portrait of a failed province and of the country’s Sunnis – once dominant under Saddam Hussein – now desperate, fearful and impoverished. They have been increasingly abandoned by religious and political leaders who have fled to neighboring countries, and other leaders have been assassinated. And unlike Iraq’s Shiite majority, or Kurdish groups in the north, the Sunnis are without oil and other natural resources. The report notes that illicit oil trading is providing millions of dollars to al-Qaeda while “official profits appear to feed Shiite cronyism in Baghdad.” > > As a result, “the potential for economic revival appears to be nonexistent” in Anbar, the report says. The Iraqi government, dominated by Iranian-backed Shiites, has not paid salaries for Anbar officials and Iraqi forces stationed there. Anbar’s resources and its ability to impose order are depicted as limited at best. > > “Despite the success of the December elections, nearly all government institutions from the village to provincial levels have disintegrated or have been thoroughly corrupted and infiltrated by Al Qaeda in Iraq,” or a smattering of other insurgent groups, the report says. This is the Civil War reality. The Marines assessment is, to repeat: “the social and political situation has deteriorated to a point” that U.S. and Iraqi troops “are no longer capable of militarily defeating the insurgency in al-Anbar,” So remind me again - what does staying achieve compared to admitting we’ve screwed up and begging the world to help us out with the aid of a blank cheque. I don’t know the answer but a start would be admitting we’ve screwed up, publically eat humble pie and work with whoever we have to on whatever terms we can get to put things right. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2006, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-iraq-options-in-leaked-memo/382617/52 "2006-12-04T16:29:08Z")
On the heels of the above report: [Is President Bush Sane?](http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15799.htm) > [@](#): > > The president of the United States is so deep into denial that he is no longer among the sane. > > Delusion still rules Bush three weeks after the American people repudiated him and his catastrophic war in elections that delivered both House and Senate to the Democrats in the hope that control over Congress would give the opposition party the strength to oppose the mad occupant of the White House. > > On November 28 Bush insisted that US troops would not be withdrawn from Iraq until he had completed his mission of building a stable Iraqi democracy capable of spreading democratic change in the Middle East. > > Bush made this astonishing statement the day after NBC News, a major television network, declared Iraq to be in the midst of a civil war, a judgment with which former Secretary of State Colin Powell concurs. > > The same day that Bush reaffirmed his commitment to building a stable Iraqi democracy, a secret US Marine Corps intelligence report was leaked. According to the Washington Post, the report concludes: “the social and political situation has deteriorated to a point that US and Iraqi troops are no longer capable of militarily defeating the insurgency in al-Anbar province.” > > \ > > An American group, the Center for Constitutional Rights, has filed war crimes charges in Germany against former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. A number of former US attorneys believe President Bush and Vice President Cheney deserve the same. > > Bush has destroyed the entire social, political, and economic fabric of Iraq. Saddam Hussein sat on the lid of Pandora’s Box of sectarian antagonisms, but Bush has opened the lid. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed as “collateral damage” in Bush’s war to bring “stable democracy” to Iraq. Tens of thousands of Iraqi children have been orphaned and maimed. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have fled their country. The Middle East is aflame with hatred of America, and the ground is shaking under the feet of American puppet governments in the Middle East. US casualties (killed and wounded) number 25,000. > > And Bush has not had enough! > > What better proof of Bush’s insanity could there be? Perhaps it’s high time some of you put down the pom-poms and face the consequences of your actions – aiding and abetting a deranged war-criminal and his cabal. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2006, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-iraq-options-in-leaked-memo/382617/53 "2006-12-04T16:54:45Z")
[QUOTE=Evil Captor] It can reasonably be argued that upon the death of Saddam, Iraq was heading for something like what an American pullout would cause. The only reason the US ever supported Hussein was that other, less stupid Presidents, listened to their other, smarter advisors who said Hussein, bad as he was, beat the alternative. [/QUOTE] And I wouldn’t take issue with that argument. I just haven’t been convinced that now that we’ve got our finger in the dike, there’s nothing to do but remove it. Which isn’t to say I haven’t seen strong arguments that our presence isn’t stopping the inevitable, but just that no one has yet argued–in this thread or elsewhere–that no foreseeable change in strategy could change results. Suppose, for example, that we decide to allow partition because we think it’s inevitable. Don’t you think our troops could play some role in making that partition at least a little less deadly? ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2006, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-iraq-options-in-leaked-memo/382617/54 "2006-12-04T17:13:59Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] no one has yet argued–in this thread or elsewhere–that no foreseeable change in strategy could change results. [/QUOTE] I’ve consistently pointed out the fallacy in your argument - the belief that we can do anything. There is nothing. Name something? More force? Dropping nukes on baghdad? Our fingers aren’t in the dyke. They are in the huge hole made by the water already flooding around it. The civil war is in progress and the sectarian hatreds running wild. The US cannot provide security enough for Bush to meet Maliki in Baghdad. It can’t do anything except bow to the inevitable. Even the frggin’ Marines say they can’t do anything. The trouble is you have an implcit assumption that ‘anything’ must involve being consonant with US war aims. Some of us are saying - that’s not possible. All you can do is beg and bribe the rest of the world to step in on whatever terms you can get. And if that means handing the mess over to powers we don’t approve of on terms they set then that’s what has to be done. But that isn’t going to happen. What will happen is Bush spinning things out long enough so that someone else has to make the hard call. Meanwhile soldiers and civilians die every day. Hold an international conference and pay whatever it takes to get muslim armies in there. If that means Syrians and Iranians then do it. It worked for Lebanon. And in a way it worked in Vietnam. Walk away and pretend the Made in the USA ‘State’ of South Vietnam could defend itself. Then the NVA come in and solve the problem. The problem is the US (or Bush) would rather the death and destruction goes on endlessly than have a ‘losing’ solution no matter what price Iraq continues to pay. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2006, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-iraq-options-in-leaked-memo/382617/55 "2006-12-04T17:24:29Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] Suppose, for example, that we decide to allow partition because we think it’s inevitable. Don’t you think our troops could play some role in making that partition at least a little less deadly? [/QUOTE] See? That’s just the problem with your thinking. Who the fuck are “you” (in the collective US sense) to “allow” Iraqis to do as they wish with their country. Beyond that, as **tagos** mentions, you continue to gloss over the fact that your presence there has been nothing but catastrophic from the start. There’s no dike and there’s no US finger on it. The floodgates are wide open and your only choices are to try to stay afloat with the least amount of drowings (not an easy task, seeing as the insurgents get stronger by the day) or admit defeat/face reality and bail. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2006, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-iraq-options-in-leaked-memo/382617/56 "2006-12-04T17:46:10Z")
[QUOTE=RedFury] See? That’s just the problem with your thinking. Who the fuck are “you” (in the collective US sense) to “allow” Iraqis to do as they wish with their country. [/QUOTE] Just think of the invasion, bestowal of freedom, and continuing presence as a gargantuan welfare program for the downtrodden Iraqis. We do it because we’re do-gooders. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2006, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-iraq-options-in-leaked-memo/382617/57 "2006-12-04T18:01:51Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > It can reasonably be argued that upon the death of Saddam, Iraq was heading for something like what an American pullout would cause. I’ve seen this bandied about in conservative circles every once in awhile but to my knowledge we’ve never had a good discussion about that hypothetical here. I call BS. After Saddam someone would have been lined up as new ruler. Or maybe there’d be a coup of some sort. Point is, how in the world could it approach what we’ve done to their country? We dissolved the army and forced out the Baathists from all government jobs, including the friggin’ teachers. We pulled the rug out of their society. Why would that happen after Saddam died/ceded power? Whoever the new leader is would’ve had to curry favor with the army. As far as I see things would’ve gone on the same – meet the new boss, same as the old boss, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2006, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-iraq-options-in-leaked-memo/382617/58 "2006-12-04T20:46:37Z")
[QUOTE=tagos] Even the frggin’ Marines say they can’t do anything. The trouble is you have an implcit assumption that ‘anything’ must involve being consonant with US war aims. [/quote] The Marines have never said any such thing, and I have no such assumption. I fail to see how your argument is more complicated than simply: things have gone catastrophically bad in Iraq therefore nothing we can possibly do could be any better. You may find that argument convincing. I do not. And it’s not like I’m not pointing out options for you to specifically address. You’ve just decided not to. > [@RedFury](#): > > See? That’s just the problem with your thinking. Who the fuck are “you” (in the collective US sense) to “allow” Iraqis to do as they wish with their country. Determining our own position on partition isn’t imperialism. Right now our policy is to prevent partition. We can change that policy. Whether or not the Iraqis want it or not is irrelevant to my point, which was premised on the possibility that they do, or that it will be inevitable either way. > [@RedFury](#): > > Beyond that, as tagos mentions, you continue to gloss over the fact that your presence there has been nothing but catastrophic from the start. Who are you kidding? You’re in too much of a hurry to paint me as a warmonger to even read my posts (like, for example, my first response to you in which I say “No one here is arguing that the Iraq War has not been a catastrophe.”) ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2006, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-iraq-options-in-leaked-memo/382617/59 "2006-12-04T21:49:30Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] The Marines have never said any such thing, and I have no such assumption. [/QUOTE] Hmmm..you sure? 'cuase I’d swear I just saw a link upthread that said as much…yep, yep, there it is! [Anbar Picture Grows Clearer, and Bleaker](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/27/AR2006112701287.html) > [@](#): > > The U.S. military is no longer able to defeat a bloody insurgency in western Iraq or counter al-Qaeda’s rising popularity there, according to newly disclosed details from a classified Marine Corps intelligence report that set off debate in recent months about the military’s mission in Anbar province. Keep on staying on. Good luck with that. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2006, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-iraq-options-in-leaked-memo/382617/60 "2006-12-04T21:55:26Z")
[QUOTE=RedFury] Hmmm..you sure? 'cuase I’d swear I just saw a link upthread that said as much…yep, yep, there it is! [Anbar Picture Grows Clearer, and Bleaker](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/27/AR2006112701287.html) Keep on staying on. Good luck with that. [/QUOTE] Can you point me to where that link says the marines think there’s nothing else that we can do in Iraq? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-iraq-options-in-leaked-memo/382617.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-iraq-options-in-leaked-memo/382617.md?page=4)