The Current Situation In Iraq

[BigRob]

I consider the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq to be statistically insignificant. Given the number and ages of our forces in Iraq, at least that many would have died from DUI wreaks, drug overdoses, muggings, driveby shootings, or just plane old accidents had those same soldiers never been sent to Iraq. It's diffinitely counter-intuitive, but, their probably safer in Iraq than on the streets of America.

I respectfully disagree.

By the time we had been in Iraq for 6 months, it was easy enough to see that we couldn't leave and we can't stay. When we do eventually leave, unless we install and arm a strongman like Saddam, there will be a bloodbath on a par with the Cambodian killing fields.

I think this argument held more weight one year ago. The situation on the ground has changed dramatically and I think that if we continue to train the Iraqi security forces and let them take the lead that a democratically elected government can function in Iraq when we eventually start phasing out. I do not think this time has arrived yet, but we are on the right path.

The latest U.N. estimates I've seen are that there are at least 2 million Iraqi refugess in Syria and Jordan. They can't stay where their at and have nowhere to go. Depending on whose figures you go by, there may have been upwards of half a million Iraqis killed as a result of our presence there.

This is accurate. Mostly in these nations they have gone to they are heavily discriminated against, however the good thing that is coming out of this is that most Iraqi refugees abroad do not identify along religious lines anymore and identify with each other as Iraqi. When they return home, this collective experience and identity can play a large role in the future success of Iraq.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

It sounds to me like it is going well but the people against the war DO NOT want to hear that. They have no intention or desire to win this. Nothing but full retreat could ever satisfy them.

Question, I don’t know but is it possible that things are worse in Afghanistan now because more of those soldiers are in Iraq. I don’t even know if the surge was taking soldiers from Afghanistan or not but I heard on the news a big breakout of prison and lots of Taliban escaped and things are doing worse there. I wondered if it was connected.

I would rather hear if it was connected by someone who is not against the war because I have come to distrust most things said by them, what ever it takes to make their point true or not, even to the point if denigrating our own troops.

So, you seem reasonable and not an anti war freak, do you think the two are connected? And if so how can it be fixed? If not connected, should we do a surge thing in Afghanistan too?

I can tell you that its only in part connected. The Resources are in fact stretched, but the fact is Bush from the start never wanted to put the troops down in harms way to get this job done. Fact is we put to much on the northern alliance and Way to much on Pakistan Security Forces. The Northern Alliance was riddled with Spies for the Taliban, and people who's loyalties could shift on us. Pakistan to many with Loyalties that where to the Taliban and not the Government of Pakistan. Also the Reaction was waaayyyy to slow. We should have hit targets the sec we where sure what happened. we gave them a month to escape. Then failed to send the Troops needed and requested in Tora Bora ( read Jawbreaker, a great read) We failed from the start to put the needed boots on the ground.

Next we failed to put the money into support that was needed overall to
build a system that could meet the goals of building a nation able to stand up to groups like the Taliban and Al Qaeda. To be realistic we where asking to much I think from the start, but we failed to meet he needs to really try those goals. Its possible troops where held back to save them for Iraq, but I think its more likely they where held back because Bush did not want to have to much blood on his hands and though it could be done with way to small of amount, relying mostly on special forces.

And just as a note of good./bad....Afghanistan had more US troops killed I guess then Iraq last month. Think about that when you think about Iraq a year or 2 down the line, who knows maybe it could flare back up just like Afghanistan has, steady more and more attacks.

As for would a Surge work in Afghanistan work? my Guess is no, not like Iraq ( and you will note that while I am clearly one who has said this war has been a disaster built on lies, I was calling for he Surge back at the very start of the war, and supported the current one, though saying the same thing I will say about Afghanistan...to little to late. The only real way to stop whats going on In Afghanistan is to lean on Pakistan, or just say Screw them and hit targets in West Pakistan where the leadership, and base camps are for the new Taliban resistance.

 

[Bunz]

Lets take a new look at the current situation in Iraq:

1) Iraqi security forces, which have grown by as many as 126,000 over the last year and have taken the lead in many security operations, such as in Sadr City and Basra in which the US military acted more as an adviser than a battlefield partner.

2) The number of US casualties last month fell to 19, a number not seen since February 2004. With Iraqi forces taking the lead there is less need for more combat troops in the area and drawbacks are expected to be announced by Patreus within the year.

3) The toll among Iraqi security forces has also fallen, from 980 in March to 506 in May.

4) Attacks are down 70% since President Bush ordered a U.S. troop increase, or "surge," early last year.

5) The UAE government recently recognized and visited the Iraqi government. This is a huge step as they are a Muslim nation and are applying pressure on other nations to do the same.

6) There is more political stability. The Sadr militias are standing down and the government is working together. The provincial elections to be held at years end will be the big test in my view, I predict that they go well.


The situation is getting better. Certainly there are some problems still be addressed, and the Iraqi government has asked for more help, which we should give them.

Could you provide some evidence of your claims here. I am not disclaiming any of them, but getting some idea of the source is always nice. A link or two would help out a lot.

Either way, I am glad that casualties are down. That is really good news. There is nothing more that I want than an immediate end to hostilities in Iraq. If fighting ended tomorrow I would rejoice.

McCain is true to a point in his remarks about it being not about presence but about casualties. As someone who has had the gamut of positions on the Iraq situation. I think it would be very unwise for the US to not maintain very long term bases there. At least 4-6 major American military installations should be maintained indefinately.

A few things I will add though from reports on the ground is that the situation is getting better but still very fragile. It is one major incident away from descending into ethnic cleansing once again.

I havent heard, but havent been paying much attention, have they figured out thier breakdown of oil revenues? It would be very wise to, at this point create a system such as the Alaska Permanent Fund, whereas individual Iraqs would share in the wealth from the oil revenues. But still plenty funds government.

In the overall, I am cautiously optomistic about the situation. One thing that is being largely ignored in this whole situation and what will be its ultimate failure in it, will be that it was to expensive. The costs of this are unbelievable, under estimated, and at that rate we are going, I am not convinced 4 more years of war on the volunteer forces is sustainable. Nor am I convinced the American economy can sustain it.

 

[Russmor]

I respectfully disagree.

I agree with your disagreement. Every life is significant. You can't brush aside 4000 lives and over 20000 more casualties as "insignificant"

I think this argument held more weight one year ago. The situation on the ground has changed dramatically and I think that if we continue to train the Iraqi security forces and let them take the lead that a democratically elected government can function in Iraq when we eventually start phasing out. I do not think this time has arrived yet, but we are on the right path.

The government is improving the situation yes...but the government has not yet become fully functional and we don't even know when that could be. There have been month long lulls in violence before this and the violence has came back. I don't understand how we can believe it till it lasts.

This is accurate. Mostly in these nations they have gone to they are heavily discriminated against, however the good thing that is coming out of this is that most Iraqi refugees abroad do not identify along religious lines anymore and identify with each other as Iraqi. When they return home, this collective experience and identity can play a large role in the future success of Iraq.

if the people return to Iraq and then see the religious turmoil that new self-identity can fall apart. Iraq is still a fragile place and I believe that us staying there isn't helping things at the moment...We are merely reducing our ability to help others who desperately need and request our help such as those in Darfur.

 

[BigRob]

Could you provide some evidence of your claims here. I am not disclaiming any of them, but getting some idea of the source is always nice. A link or two would help out a lot.

Either way, I am glad that casualties are down. That is really good news. There is nothing more that I want than an immediate end to hostilities in Iraq. If fighting ended tomorrow I would rejoice.

McCain is true to a point in his remarks about it being not about presence but about casualties. As someone who has had the gamut of positions on the Iraq situation. I think it would be very unwise for the US to not maintain very long term bases there. At least 4-6 major American military installations should be maintained indefinately.

A few things I will add though from reports on the ground is that the situation is getting better but still very fragile. It is one major incident away from descending into ethnic cleansing once again.

I havent heard, but havent been paying much attention, have they figured out thier breakdown of oil revenues? It would be very wise to, at this point create a system such as the Alaska Permanent Fund, whereas individual Iraqs would share in the wealth from the oil revenues. But still plenty funds government.

In the overall, I am cautiously optomistic about the situation. One thing that is being largely ignored in this whole situation and what will be its ultimate failure in it, will be that it was to expensive. The costs of this are unbelievable, under estimated, and at that rate we are going, I am not convinced 4 more years of war on the volunteer forces is sustainable. Nor am I convinced the American economy can sustain it.

Story

• Initial force planning and the intelligence estimates of the threat in Basrah were incorrect. However, in subsequent operations, in Sadr City, this failure seems to have been addressed.
• The Iraqi Army response, moving a division of reinforcements to Basrah in five days, demonstrated a monumental improvement in operational logistics and mobility over 18 months previous.
• One Iraqi battalion broke, It was a new battalion (1-52) in a green brigade (52nd) that had graduated training a month previously. This was presented in the press as a symbol of the lack of capabilities of the Iraqi Army. What it represented was the low end of the Iraqi Army - the capabilities of recruits fresh out of boot camp. A classic example of why it takes time to grow an army. The 1-52 Battalion has since reformed and is receiving urban combat training. On the other hand, the performance of the experienced units, such as the 1st Quick Reaction Force was significantly better.
• The ability of the ISF to defeat the recent uprising in most of southern Iraq and to contain Sadr City until sufficient forces were available to deal with that area, despite elements from Baghdad, Babil, and Karbala being temporarily deployed to Basrah, demonstrate the improvements to the ISF overall.
• The Army has now demonstrated the ability to simultaneously operate three separate corps level operations (Baghdad, Mosul, and Basrah). Eighteen months ago they did not have a functional corps command.
• The Army has demonstrated the ability to move a division of reinforcements anywhere in the country within a week. Its a major improvement over 18 months previous.
• The Ministry of Interior has demonstrated the ability to deploy a reinforced brigade anywhere in Iraq in a week. Significant improvement.
• The rapid deployment of Emergency Response Brigades and Iraqi National Police forces to Basrah and Mosul demonstrates major improvements in MoI forces mobility and capabilities, although their logistics are still lagging.

Many good improvements, but obviously still work to be done.

The reports of the deaths being down has been all over the news, I assume that I do not need to link those stories, as has the story about the UAE visit.

Violence decline.

As for the oil breakdown, there are still problems, the latest situation I am aware of is it:

Despite negotiators reaching conclusions on the distribution mechanisms for sharing Iraqi's oil wealth, the crucial questions of which type of investor relations and contractual mechanisms will be adopted , ie who will control Iraq's oil and through what means are still unanswered.

The US administration and much of the international media have represented the oil law as part of a peace plan for Iraq – a recipe for overcoming sectarianism - the same approach is demonstrated in the nature of the actual revenue sharing law. However, the US proposal that revenues be divided along sectarian and ethnic lines is more likely to do the opposite.

Furthermore, the existing oil law risks enshrining sectarianised decision-making through the creation of a Federal Oil and Gas Council (Article 5c). This council will have supreme decision-making powers over how and with which companies’ Iraqi oil will be developed and controlled. Its authority will exceed that of the cabinet, parliament, Ministry of Oil and Iraqi National Oil Company. Council members are likely to represent the parties and forces currently in government in Iraq. These parties have been organized along ethnic and sectarian lines rather than on the basis of political platforms.

Current competition between political forces in government with sectarian agendas and ambitions regarding the religious and political map of Iraq, could escalate if decision making powers over economic development are added to their spheres of authority. Iraq’s economic development risks becoming politically sectarianised. This would have serious social and political implications for the inhabitants of those regions and risks deepening and entrenching existing divisions. Some commentators suggest that this is a deliberate tactic on the part of the occcupation powers to foster divisions and undermine popular and united resistance to the oil control plans of multinational companies.

 

[BigRob]

The government is improving the situation yes...but the government has not yet become fully functional and we don't even know when that could be. There have been month long lulls in violence before this and the violence has came back. I don't understand how we can believe it till it lasts.

All true, the government needs more time, and we should give it to them. Compared to where the government was at its creation, we are light years ahead of where we were. The violence has lulled before indeed, however, this lull has been much longer and the Iraqi people are more accepting of giving the government a chance now, as they are tired of the violence as well.

if the people return to Iraq and then see the religious turmoil that new self-identity can fall apart. Iraq is still a fragile place and I believe that us staying there isn't helping things at the moment...We are merely reducing our ability to help others who desperately need and request our help such as those in Darfur.

True, it can. That said, if they return home to a functioning government and a peaceful society they will be able to further break down the sectarian barriers. It is indeed a fragile situation, but if handled properly I think it can become a relatively stable democracy.

 

[The Scotsman]

Lets take a new look at the current situation in Iraq:

1) Iraqi security forces, which have grown by as many as 126,000 over the last year and have taken the lead in many security operations, such as in Sadr City and Basra in which the US military acted more as an adviser than a battlefield partner.

2) The number of US casualties last month fell to 19, a number not seen since February 2004. With Iraqi forces taking the lead there is less need for more combat troops in the area and drawbacks are expected to be announced by Patreus within the year.

3) The toll among Iraqi security forces has also fallen, from 980 in March to 506 in May.

4) Attacks are down 70% since President Bush ordered a U.S. troop increase, or "surge," early last year.

5) The UAE government recently recognized and visited the Iraqi government. This is a huge step as they are a Muslim nation and are applying pressure on other nations to do the same.

6) There is more political stability. The Sadr militias are standing down and the government is working together. The provincial elections to be held at years end will be the big test in my view, I predict that they go well.


The situation is getting better. Certainly there are some problems still be addressed, and the Iraqi government has asked for more help, which we should give them.

If you knew that your enemy was on the verge of retreat due to internal politics would you continue attacking him?

No you'd let him leave and then reassert yourself in the power vacuum

 

[BigRob]

If you knew that your enemy was on the verge of retreat due to internal politics would you continue attacking him?

No you'd let him leave and then reassert yourself in the power vacuum

Keep in mind that there is a huge difference between the Al Quada elements in Iraq and the Sunni and Shia militias.

 

[The Scotsman]

Keep in mind that there is a huge difference between the Al Quada elements in Iraq and the Sunni and Shia militias.

.......exactly that's the point! Each grouping or faction needs the Allies to disappear in order to further their goal.

 

[BigRob]

.......exactly that's the point! Each grouping or faction needs the Allies to disappear in order to further their goal.

I still think that with the Iraqi population turned against Al Quada, and deals made with the Sadr militia, and added to the effect that refugees who return home can have on the population (as they have been identifying with each other as only Iraqi abroad and not along sectarian lines) that there is a decent shot some form of political compromise in the Iraqi government.

 

[The Scotsman]

You have to question the level of validity that the Iraqi people attach to the "Iraqi Government". Don't forget that this is a pure creation by an "invading" force held together by the US/UK coalition, in essence it is an accomodation of and for so many disparate groups and sects as to be a nonsense. As an executive functioning independent of the US I feel it would fragment and create more problems than solutions.

 

[top gun]

The big picture with full discloser is really this...

Total lie going in which was proven 100% once we got there.

We are now doing nothing more than squandering Taxpayer money @ $12 BILLION DOLLARS PER MONTH on a very obvious Nation Building campaign.

The two major faction will ebb and flow back & forth from super high violence to relatively low violence at their will until they decide not to... and if history is any indicator they will most likely never decide to.

5 or 6 years have past (longer than WW2) and we still don't even have one of the major factions participating in the "government".

Let's just be honest. If we stay forever at say 8 to 12 BILLION DOLLARS PER MONTH we can militarily police Iraq and keep a lid on things somewhat. I'd liken it to a prison camp. As long as there are enough guards there will still be some killings but the prison is contained.

The problem is this isn't our country. The feuding factions can keep this up forever and we can't because of their one huge advantage... they have no where else to go, it's their home. America from an economic disaster stand point hasn't even begun to see the effects this astronomical deficit spending will create. People that see the economy steadily worsening have to understand this is nothing yet. Every month that goes by quagmired in Iraq is unfortunately another nail in our own economic coffin here at home.

I'd also be remiss if I didn't point out that every single soldier's life is as important as all the rest. It's such common knowledge that we never should have invaded in the first place I just don't see how anyone can still continue to justify it in any way.

 

[Andy]

I notice you give but just a cursory nod to all those that have died, thanks to the lies of your Republican president.

We've been over this already. The Rockefeller report conclusively proves there were no lies. The claims that were made, were supported by the intelligence at the time.

Thanks for you time, here's a copy of the home game, you are dismissed.

 

[BigRob]

5 or 6 years have past (longer than WW2) and we still don't even have one of the major factions participating in the "government".

Yes the Sunni's boycotted the 2005 elections but have since agreed to participate in the upcoming elections.

And with a turnout of 80% in the 2005 elections I would say that the average Iraqi citizen has spoken and views for the most part their government as legitimate.

 

[BigRob]

You have to question the level of validity that the Iraqi people attach to the "Iraqi Government". Don't forget that this is a pure creation by an "invading" force held together by the US/UK coalition, in essence it is an accomodation of and for so many disparate groups and sects as to be a nonsense. As an executive functioning independent of the US I feel it would fragment and create more problems than solutions.

I hope not, I think it all depends on the next elections to see if the government will make it or not.