Latest Iraq thread
 

http://www.boston.com/news/world/mid...urgents_clash/

but that's not all... better news:

http://www.twincities.com/ci_7490271...nclick_check=1

On a Deadly Day, U.S. Reports Drop in Iraq Attacks

BAGHDAD, Nov. 18 — An American official announced Sunday that attacks and attempted attacks across Iraq last week dipped to their lowest point for any week since January of last year, and that attacks had dropped by more than half since the United States increased its troop levels in June.

The official, Rear Adm. Gregory Smith, made the announcement at a news conference here, adding that civilian deaths have dropped by three-quarters since June as well. But even as officials were announcing the figures, Iraq had once of its deadliest days in weeks, with 22 people killed in attacks nationwide.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/wo...hp&oref=slogin

At face value this is good news. But I'm not sure we should take it at face value. There are plenty of groups in Iraq that are rivals for local power and influence. Did this group decide to take out their foes, and had the bright idea to keep the US off their backs by telling them they were going after AQ? Maybe, maybe not.

The surge has peaked, and the drawdown has begun. It certain has bought Iraq some breathing space. But it was crucial that the Iraqis get full value from this opportunity to build political stability. They've done a little but not much that I can see. Will this stability last? I doubt it but time will tell.

Meanwhile here is a less upbeat analysis via the Australian ABC, citing Professor Hugh White, the head of Canberra's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre.

His report is that Afghanistan would take a generation or more to turn into a stable, self-governing country, but that this would make little strategic difference because AQ can simply operate from a different county, such as Pakistan. Regardless, the coalition there now will likely get tired of constant bleeding for the next 30 years.
Iraq is strategically important, but White argues that the country would likewise take a generation or so stabilize, and he doesn't see the public will in the west to stay the course. Summarizing Iraq: keeping the troops in won't make it better, but pulling them out will make it a lot worse.
It seems to me that the best option is to stay there and take the losses. I'd hate to have to explain that to the mother of a fallen soldier.

Washington Post: Iraqis Joining Insurgency Less for Cause Than Cash

That's a lot of dough. Where does the money come from? Partly from Syria, partly from mobster activity:
Lastly, what remarkable reporting by the WaPo:

Just another day in what is really only an American created civil war.

NY fucking Times: London, Glasgow terrorists had ties to AQI

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/14/wo...=1&oref=slogin

Attacks that turned out to be very feeble? Good propaganda about the 'impotency' of Al-Qaeda.

"AS 2007 comes to close, how should we understand the situation in Iraq? Are we witnessing the greatest American military comeback late in a war since Sherman’s march to the sea in 1864? Or is Iraq still a weakly governed and very violent place where sectarian reconciliation is starkly absent?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/22/op...=1&oref=slogin

"The war's not over, but signs are the tide is turning

MEMO to ABC's Media Watch: Iraq is now "the good news story". The judgment comes not from the Pentagon, but from some of the war's fiercest critics, including The Guardian. This week, the British daily ran two reports describing how "hopes of a remarkable recovery are rising" and noting that Iraqis were "taking back the streets". When The Australian's political editor, Dennis Shanahan, reported from Iraq at the end of August that the Commander of US forces, General David Petraeus, would tell Congress that the troop surge was working, Media Watch accused him of being a "Coalition barracker". In fact, the surge was already having an impact and creating a more favourable sentiment by the US public to the war. Though the accuracy of his report was later confirmed, Media Watch had no qualms about using post-dated articles in an attempt to discredit Shanahan and this newspaper for its allegedly partisan reporting. "

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-16382,00.html

"December 22, 2007 -- An uncertain chapter opened in Iraq this week, as British forces officially ceded control of Iraq's oil-rich southern province of Basra to the country's fledgling security services.

What comes next is unclear, but the handover is certainly evidence that - even in Iraq - time marches on.

The move formalizes the situation on the ground since September, when British forces retreated to the outskirts of the province's major city. By spring, only 2,500 British troops will remain in all of Iraq, almost exclusively in a support and training role.

In important ways, this is a good sign."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12222007...raq_528659.htm

It is a good sign I suppose. I agree with the professor from Australia, it will take more then a generation for the kind of change to take place that we are trying to facilitate.

Same in the Balkans, same anywhere.

Look at the U.S. the civil war was in the 1860's. It is the end of 2007 and there are still people who really believe that the south will rise again.

The civil war has been boiling for years before we got there, we just took the lid off. Believe me, Iraqi's care if you are a Sunni or Shia. We really don't give a damn. Over all U.S. policy has been a bit uneducated and naive, but not malicious. I know that just our presence in Iraq has a huge impact, as well as actions on the ground..good, bad, and indifferent; a civil war in Iraq does not help us, we did not set out to facilitate one. We are certainly aware that a civil war does not help the Iraqi's.

Unfortunately there are enough Iraqi's, and to an even larger extent foreign nationals, who believe that a civil war is what they want and need.

It is certainly a big ball of wax in Iraq. I am hard pressed to put a simplistic view to the the picture. And boy that is what we Americans want... simple, easy, prepared in 10 minutes or less. Oh, and if our congress makes a set of goals, well the Iraqi's better get with it. LOL. I am amazed at our arrogance sometimes. For the past few years and continuing through today, Iraq is like the proverbial banquet table where everyone has a fork that is too long. Different families, factions, clans, alliances, religious groups, countries, and individuals are all clamoring for what they think they deserve and will not give ground. This is made more complicated for us viewing from our couches because of the Iraqi/Arab/Muslim world view that most of us do not share or understand. Cause and affect are a way different hill of beans there.

O.K. my .02 for today.

Well said R.j. I just wish our leaders were willing to acknowlege the complexity before sticking their noses under the tent.

TW? Your comment on the remotely encouraging or positive reports back from Iraq?

So wait, lemme get this straight...
the brits pull out
the iraqis take over
it goes well
...and bush is right somehow?