Feel better?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The eventual draw down of troops from Iraq was ALWAYS part of the BUSH policy.

Yet for years they refused to state our intentions were short-term or even recognize the idea of a time line for withdrawal. We're not talking about a "date" mind you but even the idea.

I'd also note that the SOFA mentioned above was largely a product of the Iraqi government trying to get us to leave, not Bush itching to get the troops home.

What is it about success in Iraq that the Obama administration can take credit for, other than continuing the previous administration's policies?

Obama has been in charge for a year and has been negotiating Middle Eastern politics along the way. Though the security situation in Iraq had certainly improved by the time Bush left office, that's no guarantee that it would remain better, continue to get better or that the political situation, which is still quite fragile, could not fall apart.

The chutzpah is in continuing to trash the invasion, long after it was relevant to do so, in order to win back the congress and presidency, then turning around and claiming the previous "debacle" a success of the current administration.

So the voters think the Iraq war was a mistake, and it's off the table to challenge your opponents for supporting a failed foreign policy?

Just because it happened in the past?

This is a new concept, the idea that an elected official shouldn't be held accountable for their record in future elections. It certainly would make elections more exciting!

-spence

[Fly Rod]

Lets not give credit to a President and Vice President that vehemently opposed the troop surge and remember that in his presidential campaign this had become part of his platform to be elected.

It is the fault of those that have voted for him under false pretenses.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Lets not give credit to a President and Vice President that vehemently opposed the troop surge and remember that in his presidential campaign this had become part of his platform to be elected.

Obama definitely remarked that he didn't believe the surge was working in mid 2007 after troops had been deployed, but violence had yet to diminish.

As we all know today, it's wasn't really the "Surge" that started the reduction in violence but the fact that Sunni's started taking their future more seriously led by the Anbar Awakening which began the year before. The extra troops certainly helped provide extra security though, and it's a combination of factors that have let to the conditions today.

The assertion that this was a part of his election platform doesn't really hold water. In September 2008, just two months before the election Obama stated that he thought the surge "worked" but also that it was costly.

Why would somebody change their stance just before a vote on such a critical issue? Perhaps Obama is less of an ideologue than some think...

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

As we all know today, it's wasn't really the "Surge" that started the reduction in violence but the fact that Sunni's started taking their future more seriously led by the Anbar Awakening which began the year before. The extra troops certainly helped provide extra security though, and it's a combination of factors that have let to the conditions today.
-spence

The Anbar awakening was fueled by our marine counter-insurgency which inspired even further Al-Qaeda stupid killings of Iraqis. The Iraqis in general and the Sunnis in particular, were "awakened" to the obvious fact that it was Al-Qaeda and the "insurgents" who were killing Iraqis and trying to destroy their elected government, and it was not Americans doing that killing and destruction. And the surge, in combination with embedding our troops with the locals, not in separate bivoucs, was absolutely essential to provide the confidence and security to allow that "awakening" to flourish.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The Anbar awakening was fueled by our marine counter-insurgency which inspired even further Al-Qaeda stupid killings of Iraqis. The Iraqis in general and the Sunnis in particular, were "awakened" to the obvious fact that it was Al-Qaeda and the "insurgents" who were killing Iraqis and trying to destroy their elected government, and it was not Americans doing that killing and destruction. And the surge, in combination with embedding our troops with the locals, not in separate bivoucs, was absolutely essential to provide the confidence and security to allow that "awakening" to flourish.

I see.

So if it were not for Americans killing Iraqi's so that Iraqi's would respond by killing Iraqi's that the Iraqi's wouldn't have come to the conclusion that it wasn't worthwhile to continue to kill Iraqi's?

It's a good think we invaded in the first place, otherwise the Sunni's wouldn't have had the motivation to stop attacking us!

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I see.

So if it were not for Americans killing Iraqi's so that Iraqi's would respond by killing Iraqi's that the Iraqi's wouldn't have come to the conclusion that it wasn't worthwhile to continue to kill Iraqi's?

It's a good think we invaded in the first place, otherwise the Sunni's wouldn't have had the motivation to stop attacking us!

-spence

Another amazing display of evasive maneuvers--wiggling out of defending Biden, spinning to the Anbar Awakening, and winding into the invasion of Iraq. It's difficult to conclude anything when the topic keeps changing.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

As we all know today, it's wasn't really the "Surge" that started the reduction in violence but the fact that Sunni's started taking their future more seriously led by the Anbar Awakening which began the year before. The extra troops certainly helped provide extra security though, and it's a combination of factors that have let to the conditions today.

-spence

The Sunni didn't "start taking their future more seriously" out of some mystical awakening. It would not have happened without the removal of Sadaam. Under him, the Sunni future was secure. There was no need for co-operation with the Shia or Kurds. They didn't just magically, benevolently awaken to the wonderful world of raprochement. They were forced into that reality by BUSH'S WAR, not by some casual, or religious, or brotherly, innocently walking in the park and struck by a vision awakening. They were forced into a choice of either eventual defeat and subjugation, or being a part of a winning coalition--AS ENVISIONED by the "stupid" one. It was a costly length of time for them to see the light, which might have happened sooner if our face to the war at home was strongly unified instead of divided. Our political infighting over the war, no doubt, gave them some hope to drive us out. But the "stupid" one did not relent. BUSH did that, not Obama/Biden. The surge solidified our effort. Bush's reason for invading Iraq was ultimately, and most importantly, to begin a fundamental change in the Middle East. To bring about, in the long term, a more stable, cooperative, democratically inclined region in place of one that inflicted terror on the rest of the world. And Iraq was the soft spot to begin. The first step, in what he acknowledged, would be a long struggle, has been taken. Perhaps, if we stay with it, and give Obama kudos for doing so up to this point, the mission will progress more rapidly than expected. If Obama continues staying the course, we may see a sooner than expected change for the better. Kudos to him, if he does. But for Biden to claim Iraq a success of his administration, when he, and Obama, and the Sunni, were all dragged into it, kicking, screaming, complaining, castigating, and condemning the effort, is silly.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The Sunni didn't "start taking their future more seriously" out of some mystical awakening. It would not have happened without the removal of Sadaam. Under him, the Sunni future was secure. There was no need for co-operation with the Shia or Kurds. They didn't just magically, benevolently awaken to the wonderful world of raprochement. They were forced into that reality by BUSH'S WAR, not by some casual, or religious, or brotherly, innocently walking in the park and struck by a vision awakening. They were forced into a choice of either eventual defeat and subjugation, or being a part of a winning coalition--AS ENVISIONED by the "stupid" one. It was a costly length of time for them to see the light, which might have happened sooner if our face to the war at home was strongly unified instead of divided. Our political infighting over the war, no doubt, gave them some hope to drive us out. But the "stupid" one did not relent. BUSH did that, not Obama/Biden. The surge solidified our effort. Bush's reason for invading Iraq was ultimately, and most importantly, to begin a fundamental change in the Middle East. To bring about, in the long term, a more stable, cooperative, democratically inclined region in place of one that inflicted terror on the rest of the world. And Iraq was the soft spot to begin. The first step, in what he acknowledged, would be a long struggle, has been taken. Perhaps, if we stay with it, and give Obama kudos for doing so up to this point, the mission will progress more rapidly than expected. If Obama continues staying the course, we may see a sooner than expected change for the better. Kudos to him, if he does. But for Biden to claim Iraq a success of his administration, when he, and Obama, and the Sunni, were all dragged into it, kicking, screaming, complaining, castigating, and condemning the effort, is silly.

The Anbar Awakening has little to do with Sunni's coming to peace with their Shiite and Kurdish brothers as envisioned by some neocon dream.

The Sunni's simply came to the realization that if they banded together to provide their own security against insurgents or al Qaeda (helping rather than fight US troops) they would have a better chance at survival.

They have now, in effect formed their own militia that the Iraqi government plans to disband as it's seen as a potential threat against Iraqi stability.

Ultimately, the same sectarian strife that existed long before Saddam is still present. Unfortunately, our mishandling of the early years of the war have done much to radicalize elements in Iraq making the long-term success of a stable US partner much more difficult.

And as you said, the plan was to fundamentally change the Middle East. How has it changed? Freedom has diminished in most of the Nations we had hoped to positively influence and many of our enemies are stronger as a result.

I wonder if this was ever ENVISIONED as a risk by the "enlightened" ones.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The Anbar Awakening has little to do with Sunni's coming to peace with their Shiite and Kurdish brothers as envisioned by some neocon dream.

An "Anbar Awakening" as such, was not envisioned. It was hoped that Iraq would function as a democracy where, as Biden says, the people resolve differences politically, not by force. The Sunni certainly had no reason to do that under Sadaam.

The Sunni's simply came to the realization that if they banded together to provide their own security against insurgents or al Qaeda (helping rather than fight US troops) they would have a better chance at survival.

Exactly. And they were "simply" forced to do that because Bush removed Sadaam. Now, they must abide as part of a democratic process, not as the dictator's favorites.

They have now, in effect formed their own militia that the Iraqi government plans to disband as it's seen as a potential threat against Iraqi stability.

Yes.

Ultimately, the same sectarian strife that existed long before Saddam is still present. Unfortunately, our mishandling of the early years of the war have done much to radicalize elements in Iraq making the long-term success of a stable US partner much more difficult.

It is not the "same" sectarian strife. It is at the beginning stage of strife within the body politic, as diverse democracies have. It needs time, a generation or two, to become acculturated. Elements have not so much been "radicalized" as they have been released. They now have a chance to be part of the process, not just slaves to it. Without this new-found freedom to voice opposition and acquiesence there is constantly the possibility of social earthquakes. Democracies tend to be more stable than tyrannies.

And as you said, the plan was to fundamentally change the Middle East. How has it changed? Freedom has diminished in most of the Nations we had hoped to positively influence and many of our enemies are stronger as a result.

I guess we see things (as limited as we are in our ability to observe only by "reports") differently. It seems to me there is a bit more freedom in the Middle East, not less. And it is, I believe, and I think Bush thought, a hopeful model for younger Mid Easterners. We keep discounting the idea that they can change. Even Saudi Arabia is inviting Western teachers, especially Americans, to teach their girls and young women English and rudimentary essentials of self sufficiency.

I believe that their strength was growing when we left the Islamic radicals alone. Flushing them out gave them a brief propaganda surge, but, as they lose battle after battle, their actual military weakness is exposed. As those we fight alongside with see, as they did in Iraq, that the extremists are their enemy, not us, they will be more fully disposed to peace and cooperation rather than war and terror. Bush said it would be a long war. But if we persist, we will win, and we and the Islamic world will be the far better off for it. I applaud Obama for aggresive strikes against the Taliban. I hope he does not relent. I hope he expands the military effort. If he does, I don't think the other Nato, UN, European, whoever can keep holding back and that they will fully join us in eradicating what is a threat to them as well.

I also hope, that if Obama does stay the course, the Republicans don't oppose him for political gain the way the Democrats did to Bush. We need a solid home front to best prosecute the war.

I wonder if this was ever ENVISIONED as a risk by the "enlightened" ones.

-spence

It goes, without saying, that all wars are a risk. But winning lessens the risks.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Yet for years they refused to state our intentions were short-term or even recognize the idea of a time line for withdrawal. We're not talking about a "date" mind you but even the idea.

The "idea" for withdrawal was when either the Iraqi government demanded it (not pretended for their constituents that they wanted it) or when it was safe to do so. Time lines, as it has been argued, can be a signal to the enemy when they can wait to safely have a massive "resurgence." Stated time lines that have no relation to conditions on the ground are stupid, political poop.

I'd also note that the SOFA mentioned above was largely a product of the Iraqi government trying to get us to leave, not Bush itching to get the troops home.

The Iraq government mouthed political verbiage about wanting our troops to leave in order to molilfy Iraqis who hated "the occupation." But the Iraq government did not demand immediate withdrawal (they knew that could be a disaster), nor even gave a stupid "time line" to do it. Their "dislike" of our "occupation" was a CYA political sham, knowing full well that our troops were the only guarantee of their safety and existence. Even the Iraqi people, when polled, wanted, something like 60% to 40%, our troops to stay till it was safe to leave (no time line).

Obama has been in charge for a year and has been negotiating Middle Eastern politics along the way. Though the security situation in Iraq had certainly improved by the time Bush left office, that's no guarantee that it would remain better, continue to get better or that the political situation, which is still quite fragile, could not fall apart.

This is what the Bush administration planned on--continuing improvement that would allow withdrawal.

So the voters think the Iraq war was a mistake, and it's off the table to challenge your opponents for supporting a failed foreign policy?
-spence

If you'r referring to my chutzpah comment, I didn't say the chutzpah belonged to the voters. It belongs to Biden claiming that Iraq "could be one of the great achievements of" his administration. And "you're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government." Which is exactly what the Bush administration was derided for (by Biden, Obama, nearly the whole political left)--nation building--imposing democracy in the Middle-East where it was supposedly impossible. And --"I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences"--when he had wanted to partition Iraq into 3 states.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The "idea" for withdrawal was when either the Iraqi government demanded it (not pretended for their constituents that they wanted it) or when it was safe to do so. Time lines, as it has been argued, can be a signal to the enemy when they can wait to safely have a massive "resurgence." Stated time lines that have no relation to conditions on the ground are stupid, political poop.

I think there are plenty of reasons to not agree with this. First, the writings of Bush's most trusted advisors his first term appeared to strongly believe in a long-term US military presence in the region.

Second, the construction of gigantic military bases and the $770M embassy, the largest in the world.

And third, a SOFA position that bargained for a long-term US presence with nearly complete autonomy. It was this position that the Iraqi's rejected and led to a time line for withdrawal.

The Iraq government mouthed political verbiage about wanting our troops to leave in order to molilfy Iraqis who hated "the occupation." But the Iraq government did not demand immediate withdrawal (they knew that could be a disaster), nor even gave a stupid "time line" to do it. Their "dislike" of our "occupation" was a CYA political sham, knowing full well that our troops were the only guarantee of their safety and existence. Even the Iraqi people, when polled, wanted, something like 60% to 40%, our troops to stay till it was safe to leave (no time line).

I'd like to see a source for that poll as what I've read indicates otherwise.

If you'r referring to my chutzpah comment, I didn't say the chutzpah belonged to the voters. It belongs to Biden claiming that Iraq "could be one of the great achievements of" his administration. And "you're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government." Which is exactly what the Bush administration was derided for (by Biden, Obama, nearly the whole political left)--nation building--imposing democracy in the Middle-East where it was supposedly impossible. And "I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences"--when he had wanted to partition Iraq into 3 states.

As I've said, the Obama inherited this mess and for them to see it to a positive milestone is absolutely an accomplishment they should be taking credit for.

So Biden's viewpoint may have shifted based on the observations from the ground? Isn't that exactly why you claim time tables are stupid? Because they need to reflect reality?

Again, it's reinforcement that the Obama Administration is more pragmatic than people are giving them credit for. Hell, this "left wing radical" is scaling up US military actions in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen!

-spence

[detbuch]

[QUOTE=spence;746876]And third, a SOFA position that bargained for a long-term US presence with nearly complete autonomy. It was this position that the Iraqi's rejected and led to a time line for withdrawal.

-SPENCE.

The "Iraqi's" were not some inimical force combatting the Bush administration. They were the governing body that was originally put in place by Bush to govern. They had to start from zero, to learn the democratic process (with the aid of American Iraqis, many of whom were picked by the Bush team) and to go through elections, I think it was three by the time of the SOFA agreement. (I love the irony of our liberal pols jubilantly celebrating the first election held in Bosnia AFTER TEN YEARS of our occupation--of course that was Clinton's war, so it was a good one. But three elections, or two, I don't recall now, in six years of the bad war in Iraq were . . . OK . . . but . . .) And, yes, Bush did envision a long stay in Iraq--we're still in Korea, Japan, Germany, etc., etc., but he did promise to abide by Iraq's will in the matter--democracy is what he wanted to establish in Iraq, and eventually in the Middle East, not American occupation. And it was the plan that Iraq, as a democratic state, had the final say. It was to be negotiable, the Iraqis still needed help, but the ultimate decision was to be theirs. So their rejection of US proposals and creation of a time-line was done hand in hand with Bush, not against him. Whether that time line stands, may depend on future conditions on the ground. The Iraqis felt, at the end of 2008, that conditions were good, so, probably for political reasons rather than security ones, they went for it. And Bush, maybe to wrap it up in time to hand Obama the gift--or the poison pill, said OK.