Feel better?

[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.