Corner turned in Iraq?

[texaspackerbacker]

I see you are still well behind the curve, Freakout.

True, some of the bad guys could pick their arms back up. Many, though, would have a hard time because they are DEAD. Many others have been turned, and are now part of the solution.

The REAL turning of the corner has been by the new Iraqi government and military. And with our training and support, they are moving steadily toward being able to control the terrorist element. Thus, any living bad guys who tried to get back in the fight would stand a strong chance of getting slapped down hard by an Iraqi military that presumably wouldn't be near as soft on their enemies as we are.

[Harlan Huckleby]

We have used air power more and more the last six months to attack militants in Sadr City and elsewhere in Iraq rather than send troops in...it's been very effective. I read somewhere that we had fired more than 400 Hellfire missiles in one month alone in Sadr city. As far as the troops being stationed in smaller bases throughout the city/region it has been effective....but what about after we leave?

OK. I really hadn't noticed increased airpower use. The part about us leaving is the $64K question, I agree.

I am not troubled by the protests by Sadr supporters demanding that the U.S. get out. politics are good. An Iraq popular consensus on whether we should stay or leave is going to emerge, starting with elections next fall. Whatever the Iraqi people want is fine with me. (Up to the point that I don't want us to stay indefinitely in a violent country.)

[Freak Out]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkx-3oYeFwuWKCusr2jrojs98w8wD911E6CG0

Iraq cites problems with US security pact

By ROBERT H. REID – 1 day ago

BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraq's chief spokesman acknowledged differences with the United States over a proposed long-term security agreement and pledged on Sunday that the government will protect Iraqi sovereignty in ongoing talks with the Americans.

Australia became the latest member of the U.S.-led coalition to pull combat soldiers from Iraq, fulfilling an election promise that helped sweep Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to power in November.

Opposition has been growing in Iraq to the proposed security pact with the U.S., which will replace the current U.N. mandate and could provide for a long-term American military role in this country.

Much of the opposition comes from anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, but statements critical of the deal have also been issued by mainstream Sunni and Shiite figures who fear it will undermine Iraqi sovereignty.

Chief government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the Iraqi negotiators have a "vision and a draft that is different" from the Americans but that the talks, which began in March, were still in an early stage.

"There is great emphasis by the Iraqi government on fully preserving the sovereignty of Iraq in its lands, skies, waters and its internal and external relations," al-Dabbagh said. "The Iraqi government will not accept any article that infringes on sovereignty and does not guarantee Iraqi interests."

U.S. officials have refused to comment on the talks until they are complete but have insisted they are not seeking permanent bases. The agreement is to replace a U.N. mandate for U.S.-led forces that expires at the end of the year.

President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said they were hoping to finish the negotiations by July to allow time for the Iraqi parliament to sign off on the deal.

But Iraqi officials said last month that talks were unlikely to wrap up by July because of wide differences over several issues, including immunity enjoyed by U.S. troops from prosecution in Iraqi courts and rules governing U.S. military operations.

In recent weeks, Iraqi forces have taken the lead in operations against Al-Qaida in Iraq and other Sunni militants in the northern city of Mosul and against Shiite militias in southern Basra and in the Shiite district of Sadr City in Baghdad.

But the government appears to be following a policy of negotiating with militants — a strategy that calmed the situation in the three cities but probably enabled some hardliners to slip away to fight another day.

During a press conference Sunday, Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, a Kurd, spoke out in favor of the U.S.-Iraq security agreement, saying Iraq's forces still needed the support of the U.S.-led coalition.

"Our forces and capabilities haven't reached the level of self-sufficiency," Zebari said at a joint news conference with visiting French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner. "We need this strategic security agreement ... for the time being. But this is not open-ended."

At the same time, the U.S. command is facing a dwindling coalition of allied countries that provide combat power in Iraq.

Australia, one of the first countries to commit troops to the Iraq war five years ago, ended its combat mission here Sunday and began sending its 550 combat troops home. A few hundred others will remain to train the Iraqis and protect Australian diplomats, officials said.

Rudd, the new prime minister, has said the Iraq mission had made Australia more of a target for terrorism and had promised to bring home his country's combat soldiers by the middle of this year.

"We have to praise the role of the Australian troops in stabilizing the security situation in the province through their checkpoints on the outskirts of the city," said Aziz Kadim Alway, the governor of Dhi Qar province where most of the troops were based.

The Iraqi government already has assumed security responsibilities for the Shiite-dominated province, which includes the volatile city of Nasiriyah. But the Australians had remained there in case the Iraqis needed help in maintaining order.

American troops will temporarily take over those responsibilities, the U.S. command said.

The Australians had "successfully accomplished their mission" and their contributions "assisted in the stabilization and development of Iraq," U.S. military spokesman Col. Bill Buckner said in a statement.

Britain transferred security responsibilities for the main southern province of Basra last year and pulled its 4,000 soldiers back to the Basra airport last year. Britain suspended plans to remove another 1,500 troops after fighting broke out in Basra in March.

The Poles have also announced they will withdraw some of their 900 soldiers from Iraq by the end of October.

Meannwhile, an American soldier was killed Sunday by an armor-piercing roadside bomb in northeastern Baghdad, the military said. No further details were released.

A car bomb exploded Sunday in a parking lot across the street from the Iranian Embassy, killing at least two civilians and wounding five people, including three embassy guards.

Elsewhere in the capital, a senior police official was wounded and a traffic cop was killed when a bomb stuck to the official's car exploded in a busy intersection.

Two civilians also were killed in separate roadside bombs Sunday near Baqouba, northeast of Baghdad. A policeman and a civilian were injured when a roadside bomb targeted a police patrol in Mosul, an official of the provincial operations center said.

The violence was reported by officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to release the information.

Two U.S. soldiers were injured when their helicopter crashed Sunday south of Baghdad, the military said. The military said the crash was being investigated but appeared to be due to mechanical failure.

Associated Press writers Sameer N. Yacoub and Bushra Juhi contributed to this report.

[texaspackerbacker]

Not a helluva lot of substance in this article.

The whole remaining Australian contingent was just 550 troops--less than battalion strength. Big Deal! Australia was a good and valuable ally in Iraq for a while--until their version of the leftist media poisoned the electorate and got their form of a scumbag cut and run type in. No matter. The job is almost done anyway.

As for the Iraqis, they are now subject to the whims of the voters in their country. That's a good thing--actually a great thing called representative democracy/ If it serves their political purpose to seem to be standing up the the Americans, fine. We aren't interested in any long term diminishing of their sovreignty anyway.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The job is almost done anyway.

Are you a cut and runner !?

The Iraq War has been a disaster. We now see, maybe, a Phoenix rising out of the ashes.

Its sad but inevitable that the war is such a political football. There should be no cause for gloating by any party, this is a tragedy.

I do agree with Tex's take that years from now people may look back and see this adventure as a success. It could actually transform the Middle East in a postive way.

Or not.

[texaspackerbacker]

The job is almost done anyway.

Are you a cut and runner !?

The Iraq War has been a disaster. We now see, maybe, a Phoenix rising out of the ashes.

Its sad but inevitable that the war is such a political football. There should be no cause for gloating by any party, this is a tragedy.

I do agree with Tex's take that years from now people may look back and see this adventure as a success. It could actually transform the Middle East in a postive way.

Or not.

A cut and runner would fantasize defeat, then push to get out to fulfill that fantasy. I am realistically analyzing the situation as decreasingly needing American troops in active roles to enable a positive conclusion.

Bill Clinton parsed the meaning of "is". I would ask you, Harlan, how do you define "has been"? The actual "war" was a great success; The first year or so of the nation-building was a decent success; Then, al Qaeda blew up the mosque at Samarra--kicking off its campaign of instigating sectarian violence, and people whined about "disaster"--if that's the "has been" time period you are talking about, yeah, maybe a limited disaster; Then, we switched over to the McCain/Petraeus/Bush surge, and there has been clear movement toward success. When I say "the job is almost done", I'm referring to the fact that American troops are increasingly turning over the high risk missions to the Iraqis. We should be mostly out without the risk of enemy resurgence in a year or two or three.

As for the war being a "political football" just who do you think made it that way? Never before in American history has the non-incumbent party basically behaved like an "enemy within" as the Democrats did when Bush reached super high levels of popularity after the military victory. THEY were the ones who showed unprecedented DISLOYALTY in politicizing Iraq and basically linking their own disgusting success to the success of the terrorist enemy.

[MJZiggy]

As for the war being a "political football" just who do you think made it that way? Never before in American history has the non-incumbent party basically behaved like an "enemy within" as the Democrats did when Bush reached super high levels of popularity after the military victory. THEY were the ones who showed unprecedented DISLOYALTY in politicizing Iraq and basically linking their own disgusting success to the success of the terrorist enemy.

They kept funding the damned thing, didn't they?

[Harlan Huckleby]

The actual "war" was a great success; The first year or so of the nation-building was a decent success; Then, al Qaeda blew up the mosque at Samarra--kicking off its campaign of instigating sectarian violence, and people whined about "disaster"--if that's the "has been" time period you are talking about

The invasion was a success, yes. but then 5 years of H-E-L-L. Rumsfeld had the notion that the invisible hand of freedom and capitalism would unleash postive energies. quite the opposite, it unleashed lawlessness that maximized the insurgency and tragedy to the Iraqi people.

I'm not going to argue with you whether the first two years of occupation were a success. If that is your idea of success, then you are beyond convincing.

And the Samarra bombing was a very negative event, but just an accelerant to trends already well underway. You present it as a bit of bad luck on the road of a working policy.

I keep my fingers crossed that the positive trends of the last year are taking root. We'll know when we start see large numbers of exiles returning - hasn't happened yet.

[texaspackerbacker]

Until the Samarra bombing and the aftermath--all of which were perpetrated or instigated by al Qaeda, sectarian hatred was generally overcome. All of the milestones were being met--elections, constitution, infrastructure, etc. The "invisible hand" you spoke of really was working--enthusiasm for voting, cooperation, resurgence of economic activity. Then, the "disaster" you talk about happened, courtesy of the terrorist enemy successfully bringing the sectarian hatred to the surface.

And how much of that do you think was the result of the "enemy within"--leftist politicians and media basically BEGGING the terrorist enemy for photo ops and headlines that could fuel their Bush-hate campaign?

There were basically four time periods: the war itself, the pre-Samarra success in nation-building, the "disaster", and the improvement resulting from the surge.

If you're willing to frame your "disaster" rhetoric that way, I agree. If not, you are out of line with historical fact.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Until the Samarra bombing and the aftermath--all of which were perpetrated or instigated by al Qaeda, sectarian hatred was generally overcome. All of the milestones were being met--elections, constitution, infrastructure, etc. The "invisible hand" you spoke of really was working--enthusiasm for voting, cooperation, resurgence of economic activity .

Are you insane or willfully ignorant?

I'm sorry, that came out a little harsh.

Iraq was a HELL HOLE at the time of the Samarra bombing.

The enthusiasm for the election was impressive, yes, followed by an explosion in violence PRIOR to the Samarra bombing. And the RESULT of the election was negative - deepening the split along ethnic lines.

The consitution that was signed was simply a disaster. The country has made some limitted political progress since DESPITE a consitution that TOTALLY screwed the Sunni, inflaming violence, and set the terms for the breakup of the country.

Maybe I am overstating the case, at least it was a start. But it was a very dissappointing document. In fact, that was the point where I thought "all is lost."

None of this matters. I'll join you in hoping for the best in the future, and seeing good opportunities.

[MJZiggy]

IIRC, didn't it take a few tries and a few missed deadlines to get that constitution through? On the flipside, they did manage to host the 2nd Working Party toward accession in the WTO...

[texaspackerbacker]

Harlan, you seem to be believing the propaganda, demagoguery, and indeed out and out lies that your side put out about Iraq. The "HELL HOLE" you refer to before the Samarra bombing, etc. did NOT include any significant numbers of roadside bombs, IEDs, suicide bombs, etc. There was no significant anti-government or anti-American violence. There was a ton of infrastructure building--schools, hospitals, etc.--good news of many kinds--that the God damned leftist media failed to report, in short, things were moving toward good. The ONLY semblance of a hell hole at all was the leftovers from Saddam and the effects of shock and awe and ground combat, and by a year after the fall of Saddam, much of that was cleaned up.

You refer to the badness of the constitution? That too is bullshit put out by YOUR side in this country. The Sunnis/Saddamists indeed were stripped of their out of proportion power and influence. There was proportional representation (with them as a 20-25% minority) and protections for the minorities, including the Sunnis.

The thing that inflamed the Sunnis was when al Qaeda committed atrocities on them in the name of the Shi'ites--supposedly in retaliation for the Samarra bombing, etc. which al Qaeda perpetrated and blamed on the Sunnis against the Shi'ites. Yeah, the hate was there already, but it didn't manifest itself as violence until after Samarra.

No problem on the harshness. Hell, I call you gullible and worse all the time.

[Harlan Huckleby]

All we can say for sure is one of us lives in a land of make believe.

Almost everything you say is factually incorrect, utter nonsense.

Unless I'm the crazy one.

[mraynrand]

Tex,

I think you underestimate the chaos present even before the Samarra bombing. I used to think that the press playing up crap like Abu Grahib had a big effect on the violence in Iraq, but it's probably less than I thought. Like Michael Yon reported, the abuses of Abu Grahib and the mismanagement of the interim government were well known to the Iraqis on the street - because they were in direct contact with the people who had been abused. That had a big effect on allowing insurgents to prosper. Bottom line is that top-down nation building wasn't working in Iraq, but Petraeus' focus on Bottom-up building seems to be doing the trick, thank God.

[bobblehead]

I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle guys, prebombing wasn't exactly nirvana, but post bombing is when it really went to shit.