Second Chances

http://michaelyon-online.com/wp/second-chances.htm

I don't know what to say - I just sat here stunned reading it. I'm iincapable of comprehending what motivates these people to do this.

One excerpt:
"The official reported that on a couple of occasions in Baqubah, al Qaeda invited to lunch families they wanted to convert to their way of thinking. In each instance, the family had a boy, he said, who was about 11 years old. As LT David Wallach interpreted the man’s words, I saw Wallach go blank and silent. He stopped interpreting for a moment. I asked Wallach, “What did he say?” Wallach said that at these luncheons, the families were sat down to eat. And then their boy was brought in with his mouth stuffed. The boy had been baked. Al Qaeda served the boy to his family."

A few more. . .

"Al Qaeda: the organization that gleefully bragged about murdering roughly 3,000 people by smashing jets full of civilians into buildings and earth. Al Qaeda in Iraq: who proudly broadcast their penchant for sawing off the heads of living breathing people, and in such a manner as to ensure lots of spurting blood and gurgles of final pain, in some cases with the added flourish of the executioner raising up the severed head and squealing excitedly."

"After years of experience, the terrorists had prepared Baqubah to an extent greater than either Fallujah or Ramadi had been. During one of the briefings Saturday, General Petraeus mentioned that Baqubah was probably the most rigged city of the entire war. Another officer at the briefing said there is so much explosives residue in Baqubah that the bomb dogs get confused."

"The bloggers who demand fairness and truth are auditing what we write, but the market ultimately determines how much of any kind of reporting about this war ever gets placed before consumers."

yesman065;363493 wrote:

"al Qaeda invited to lunch families they wanted to convert to their way of thinking."

I wonder how effective this recruiting technique was for them?

100%, I would expect.

I don't understand that. If someone baked my boy, I would fear and hate them. I may join them to keep them from baking more of my children, but I would just be looking for an opportunity to turn the tables on them. I wouldn't be loyal in any way. They would have to be watching their backs.

I don't understand that. If someone baked my boy, I would fear and hate them. I may join them to keep them from baking more of my children, but I would just be looking for an opportunity to turn the tables on them. I wouldn't be loyal in any way. They would have to be watching their backs.

True. But then again, if they are powerful enough to do that to your child with impunity, you may feel that they are powerful enough to know what you are doing and to whom you are speaking at any time. These people must feel an overwhelming sense of helplessness. After all, who can rescue them? The most powerful nation that ever existed was not able to prevent what is happening to them.

Undertoad;363497 wrote:

100%, I would expect.

Not quite. They didn't get the kid.

Yabbut Glatt, that's Western thinking: the lone rebel fights the brutal empire, through just the force of his will if that's all he has left, because the most important thing is to assert abstract rights that he is not offered, in order to seek a better, more just way.

(What a wordy SOB I am sometimes. How do you people put up with me.)

In the desert, I imagine the biggest lesson is you don't fight forces stronger than yourself, if you want to live.

But they wanted to convert the families "to their way of thinking." I can imagine fearing a group and going along with it grudgingly but I'd never join their way of thinking. If they asked me to bake somebody else's kid to get them to join too, I don't see how I could do that. It's the obvious next step to see who is loyal. I'd leave in the night instead. I do understand the refugee problem. I'd be one if they baked my boy and I thought they would do it again to another.

sick.........and guess who I blame.

I think I would come off the table and take a body part of someone before I was killed too or pass out from shock. I am shocked just reading it.

And the Democrats want to lose to these people?

It's not that I can't imagine what they're thinking -- I know what they're thinking. That's why I'm sure the national leadership of the Democratic Party is composed of total idiots.

Urbane Guerrilla;363591 wrote:

And the Democrats want to lose to these people?

The Democrats want to stop losing to these people.

Glatt, their actions tell us otherwise. The Democrats have no, repeat no, strategy to win this. They never had one, show no interest in getting one, and are therefore wholly incompetent. Don't vote for any, contribute campaign money to their opponents only, remove any and all support for this sorry Party.

Glatt, their actions tell us otherwise. The Democrats have no, repeat no, strategy to win this.

Unlike the Republicants who have it all sewn up?

To their infinite credit, the Republicans are convinced America should win her wars. This idea is completely absent from the Democrats, as their actions show.

[neo]All we need do is bomb Iran. That will fix those nondemocracies.[/con]

lol.

Urbane Guerrilla;363597 wrote:

The Democrats have no, repeat no, strategy to win this. They never had one

This much of your post is true. The rest is false.

When I say the Democrats want to stop losing, what I mean is that the war is already lost, and pulling out now (or at least setting a timetable to pull out) is simply having the guts to admit what is plain for all to see. It's over, and we lost. It's time to stop investing in a losing proposition. Cut our losses. Let bygones be bygones.

yesman065;363493 wrote:

"The official reported that on a couple of occasions in Baqubah, al Qaeda invited to lunch families they wanted to convert to their way of thinking. In each instance, the family had a boy, he said, who was about 11 years old. As LT David Wallach interpreted the man’s words, I saw Wallach go blank and silent. He stopped interpreting for a moment. I asked Wallach, “What did he say?” Wallach said that at these luncheons, the families were sat down to eat. And then their boy was brought in with his mouth stuffed. The boy had been baked. Al Qaeda served the boy to his family."

I just can't believe it. It's such an outlandish claim and to me it makes no logical sense - it's literally overkill.

If you want to brutalise and terrify people then I can understand kidnapping, maiming, torturing their children. Well, not understand it, but I can see that it would take away people's humanity and replace it with mindless fear and total obedience. But how much more loyalty do you get by cooking them?

Also, I'm interested in how this was done, precisely - if "the luncheon" dish included the stuffed head (for identification purposes) does this mean the whole torso was also cooked? In which case I assume the offal was removed as well as the arms and legs. Quite a lot of work involved as opposed to standing the kid in front of his parents and shooting him in the head.

What did they do with families they wanted to convert to their way of thinking that didn't have eleven year old boys? Or was that the reason they were interested in the first place? I would assume that if al Qaeda sent out buffet invites at any point after the first incident, that people would just drop everything and run anyway. After all if the story has made it this far round the world you'd think people in the same reason would have heard it pretty quickly.

I suppose I could be being hopelessly naive, but I don't feel it. I do believe there are inventive, sadistic and ruthless people out there. I'm aware of reports of torture and killing backed up by evidence from Amnesty International. This just doesn't ring true to me though.

Sundae - I don't think they were trying to recruit anyone - it was done out of pure evil. To make these people become subservient to Al Qaeda. I do not see how we can just withdraw from this. This war cannot be lost - there is just too much at stake. I don't like many things about how this has gone or why or whatever, but the more I read about what we are trying to prevent there, the more resolve I gain. Withdrawl is not an option to me - for many reasons.

glatt;363614 wrote:

When I say the Democrats want to stop losing, what I mean is that the war is already lost, and pulling out now (or at least setting a timetable to pull out) is simply having the guts to admit what is plain for all to see. It's over, and we lost. It's time to stop investing in a losing proposition. Cut our losses. Let bygones be bygones.

It al depends on who you get your information from - It is not plain to me at all that this is lost - Gen. Patreus is neither dillusional nor a fool and I'll take his opinion over anyone elses at this point. Maybe we should have a vote in Iraq - a real one - and if they really want us to leave, then so be it. The infighting and dissention here is certainly not helping things abroad.

yesman065;363694 wrote:

It al depends on who you get your information from - It is not plain to me at all that this is lost - Gen. Patreus is neither dillusional nor a fool and I'll take his oipinion over anyone elses at this point. Maybe we should have a vote in Iran - a real one - and if they really want us to leave, then so be it. The infighting and dissention here is certainly not helping things abroad.

Attention to detail is important, yesman065. Do you really think we'll be leaving Iran? Ever?

Tell ya something else. Dissent is patriotic.

yesman065;363694 wrote:

The infighting and dissention here is certainly not helping things abroad.

On the contrary, it is helping a lot.

The more infighting and dissent, the faster the troops will come home. Bush had been on autopilot with this war for 3-4 years before the dissent and infighting made him pay attention. If we had this infighting and dissent earlier, maybe Bush would have tried his surge after two years of a stalemate rather than waiting for four years of stalemate. If we had this infighting and dissent before the war began, maybe we could have avoided the whole mess in the first place.

I think the reasons why they baked the kids have already been mentioned. They want to be the badass kid on the block and are just getting a reputation. The are not looking for loyalty, but respect (in a “don’t mess with us” type of way).

For UG, the problem is that by the way we are fighting the war on terror we are just making more terrorists. Just randomly bombing innocent people does not make them appreciate us any more. Besides that, declaring a war on an ideology is something that can not be won except by using that same ideology. I supported a war in Afghanistan like we did in 2001-2002 since that was very effective because we specified we wanted to take down a specific group in a specific region and the local population more or less supported us. But to say we are going to rid the entire world of terror by bombing and "collateral damage" is about as unrealistic as declaring a war on an inanimate object.

We are not the ones doing random bombing, never have.

BigV;363701 wrote:

Attention to detail is important, yesman065. Do you really think we'll be leaving Iran? Ever?

Tell ya something else. Dissent is patriotic.

Yes, I think we will leave when things settle down, obviously not 100% though. I still think we should try and find out what the majority of Iraqis want - believe me - if they don't want us there then I'm all for every single American to begin leaving right now - period. Also, I'm aware that dissent CAN BE patriotic, but is not always.

glatt;363614 wrote:

It's time to stop investing in a losing proposition. Cut our losses. Let bygones be bygones.

How do you suppose these would be bygones, though? I do not suppose our foes would do so, and can't imagine why you'd suppose it. Getting this war expeditiously lost would mean what, ten years down the road, or twenty? World War One set up World War Two, you know. These wars have been posited as a continent-wide European civil war in two phases, at bottom.

We're after stability enough to permit economic development there, in a place kept from economic development by states unconcerned with it, and in especial Iraq. We don't get that, we're in big and chronic trouble. So why do something to set up a greater and more ruinous war later on? Isn't it just plain stupid to seek a substitute for victory? Successful American foreign policy, especially dealing with countries so little connected with the wealth-producing powers of the global economy as the ones we're currently engaged in, calls for victory, particularly in the making of future grand alliances. If we don't get the victory now, we'll have to get one later -- and for those wringing their hands over the cost, what is the cost later?

I'm unimpressed with the "patriotism" of the dissent also. It is almost entirely based on the gut feeling that "America must lose, especially to non-democracies, because we're democratic and America. Whatever we do, we mustn't ever try and win a fight with a dictatorship, a band of thugs, or really anybody." As you know, I regard this sort of thinking as idiotic in a democrat, and superbly in one's overall interest if one is a fascist.

I also don't buy the idea that one can only use an identical ideology to defeat an ideology, nor that one is in danger of adopting a similar ideology to the one being fought against. Cases in point: the Cold War, World War Two, and the American Civil War, as well as the American Revolution, where George III's Britain failed to see it was engaged in an ideological struggle (not having fought one since about 1649) and never caught up.

How come nobody here but me is spelling "delusional" correctly? It has no connection etymologically with illusions.

Urbane Guerrilla;363909 wrote:

Getting this war expeditiously lost would mean what, ten years down the road, or twenty? World War One set up World War Two, you know.

I don't have a crystal ball, but my best guess is that if we left Iraq, it would end up being very similar to the situation in Somalia. Lots of warlord type people fighting for dominance. Without the common enemy of the US military, they will turn on each other even more. There will be a resulting refugee crisis, and we must be prepared to help with that. It will be a bad situation, but not significantly worse than it is now. It's already bad today.

glatt;363966 wrote:

I don't have a crystal ball, but my best guess is that if we left Iraq, it would end up being very similar to the situation in Somalia. Lots of warlord type people fighting for dominance. Without the common enemy of the US military, they will turn on each other even more. There will be a resulting refugee crisis, and we must be prepared to help with that. It will be a bad situation, but not significantly worse than it is now. It's already bad today.

Oh, I think it will be much worse. Once the U.S. is gone all that oil power and revenue will be up for grabs. Who do think will end up with that? The fledgling Govt., the terrorists or someone else? If that falls under Al Qaeda, then they will have not only the ability, but also the resources to buy whatever they want. This scenario gets much worse when you consider the autrocities that will certainly escalate after our premature withdrawl also.

So let's play a few chess moves ahead for once.

Madeline Albright took responsibility for the death of 500,000 Iraqi children under sanctions...

...and most Americans blame Bush, most non-Americans blame all the US for the deaths during the whole current fiasco...

...so who'll be blamed if there's utter carnage after we're gone?

Gee, I'll bite - US the U.S

Urbane Guerrilla;363909 wrote:

How do you suppose these would be bygones, though? I do not suppose our foes would do so, and can't imagine why you'd suppose it. Getting this war expeditiously lost would mean what, ten years down the road, or twenty? World War One set up World War Two, you know. These wars have been posited as a continent-wide European civil war in two phases, at bottom.

Then it was posited wrongly. WW I & WW II in Europe were both wars between fascist states for the control of the rest of the world.

We're after stability enough to permit economic development there, in a place kept from economic development by states unconcerned with it, and in especial Iraq. We don't get that, we're in big and chronic trouble.

Why? Why would we be in big trouble there? The only reason to be in big trouble there is to be there, uninvited.

So why do something to set up a greater and more ruinous war later on? Isn't it just plain stupid to seek a substitute for victory? Successful American foreign policy, especially dealing with countries so little connected with the wealth-producing powers of the global economy as the ones we're currently engaged in, calls for victory, particularly in the making of future grand alliances. If we don't get the victory now, we'll have to get one later -- and for those wringing their hands over the cost, what is the cost later?

Only if you're so blind as to think we must conquer the whole world. That's neither a necessity not a reasonable goal. Do you really think the Arabs will ever be organized enough to be a threat to the west? Terrorists, maybe, but an organized threat? No way. And as we've seen, democracy does not guarantee no terrorists... we have plenty of them here, in Japan, England and everywhere else in the world. terrorists are just a half assed excuse for pushing your style of fascism.

I'm unimpressed with the "patriotism" of the dissent also. It is almost entirely based on the gut feeling that "America must lose, especially to non-democracies, because we're democratic and America. Whatever we do, we mustn't ever try and win a fight with a dictatorship, a band of thugs, or really anybody." As you know, I regard this sort of thinking as idiotic in a democrat, and superbly in one's overall interest if one is a fascist.

Of course your unimpressed, your military style blinders prevent you from seeing anything but, my country, right or wrong, my orders, right or wrong, my opinion, right or wrong. That fer me or agin me attitude, won't permit you to see any path except forcing everyone to fall in step. That's the exact same way Hitler, Stalin, Castro and Mao, felt. What we must not do is not, "not lose fights with dictators", but not start fights with dictators. If they start it, by all means destroy them, but no wars based on bullshit preemptive excuses.

I also don't buy the idea that one can only use an identical ideology to defeat an ideology, nor that one is in danger of adopting a similar ideology to the one being fought against. Cases in point: the Cold War, World War Two, and the American Civil War, as well as the American Revolution, where George III's Britain failed to see it was engaged in an ideological struggle (not having fought one since about 1649) and never caught up.

Now that's just silly. If the ideologies are the same, why fight?

How come nobody here but me is spelling "delusional" correctly? It has no connection etymologically with illusions.

Maybe it's because you're the only delusional one here... but that said, show me where I've spelled it wrong.

If we want to win the war in Iraq there is only one way I can see it happening. First, we do what xoxoxoBruce has suggested and start working with the insurgent nationalists to get rid of Al Qaeda. The second we defeat Al Qaeda, we get the fuck out because those nationalists will turn against us (watch the end of the first video). If we are not going to work with the nationalists or not give full effort, we might as well leave because are doing nothing but hurting the Iraqis.

[youtube]cXK-SCcNwGs[/youtube]

[youtube]IQDrJs8t388[/youtube]

Undertoad;363975 wrote:

...so who'll be blamed if there's utter carnage after we're gone?

Too bad you guys learned that lesson so recently, we could've avoided the whole engagement.

Nobody gets away, my friend, least of all the disengagers; if we don't sign Kyoto who will be blamed?

People with a brain?

piercehawkeye45;364017 wrote:

First, we do what xoxoxoBruce has suggested and start working with the insurgent nationalists to get rid of Al Qaeda.

Let me clarify, this is not my suggestion. I am merely passing along what Michael Yon tells me started in April, with excellent results.

I suggest we LEAVE!
Without stealing any oil or natural gas, of course.

I have been leaving for a while but the 1920 Revolution Brigade is really the only good news I've heard in a while. Too bad the little boy has already cried wolf a few times already....

We will still have to stay for a while so we might as well see how it goes. If that goes well then we should keep on that track, if it fails, gets our asses out of there. I would really like to see good Iraqi-US relations after this conflict but unfortunately with the guys in charge, I don't have high hopes.

piercehawkeye45;364150 wrote:

I would really like to see good Iraqi-US relations after this conflict but unfortunately with the guys in charge, I don't have high hopes.

Not to worry - if we withdraw anytime soon - they'll all be dead anyway.

piercehawkeye45;364150 wrote:

I have been leaving for a while but the 1920 Revolution Brigade is really the only good news I've heard in a while. Too bad the little boy has already cried wolf a few times already....

We will still have to stay for a while so we might as well see how it goes. If that goes well then we should keep on that track, if it fails, gets our asses out of there. I would really like to see good Iraqi-US relations after this conflict but unfortunately with the guys in charge, I don't have high hopes.

I think the last four years proves we can't do it. That said, I think if the 1920s can rally the support of the majority, they can do it fairly quickly. Not put an end to all dissension, but make the Iraqi government strong enough to handle it on their own. I've got my fingers crossed.

Undertoad;363975 wrote:

So let's play a few chess moves ahead for once.

Madeline Albright took responsibility for the death of 500,000 Iraqi children under sanctions...

...and most Americans blame Bush, most non-Americans blame all the US for the deaths during the whole current fiasco...

...so who'll be blamed if there's utter carnage after we're gone?

But she still has not taken responsibility for the 800,000 killed in 4 months in Rawanda. They ignored it.

xoxoxoBruce;364218 wrote:

I think the last four years proves we can't do it. That said, I think if the 1920s can rally the support of the majority, they can do it fairly quickly. Not put an end to all dissension, but make the Iraqi government strong enough to handle it on their own. I've got my fingers crossed.

They don't have many chances left to do it. The pressure is really on. Iran is rubbing their hands and enjoying the show as they throw their own healthy dose of fuel on the fire. The next 6 months will be very interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/world/middleeast/16reconcile.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

He listed the insurgent groups he knows, including the 1920s Revolutionary Brigade, the Islamic Army and Ansar al-Sunna, a faction known for gruesome beheadings.

“All of them I am in touch with,” he said. “They are waiting to see if my experience will succeed. If it succeeds, they will adopt it. But if it doesn’t, it will cause confrontation.”

Yes, the pressure is on and it is a real hit or miss.

"TheMercenary" wrote:

Iran is rubbing their hands and enjoying the show as they throw their own healthy dose of fuel on the fire.

Iran doesn't have as much influence as you think. Most of the violence comes from Saudi Arabia.

The next 6 months will be very interesting.

Yes, very.

Our best hope is the word has/will spread among the Iraqis that the areas where al Qaeda has been in control, even for a short period, has been very unpleasant for the people. Even the ones that haven't been killed or maimed.

And perhaps that the places where al Queda has been removed is far better now and that word spreads as well. If the insurgents learn that we are "helping" perhaps some will take up arms against al Queda as well - those occurences, although few as far as I have heard, have been invaluable.

They are still going to hate us, the foreign infidels. But if they back a nationalist movement, and just use the infidels to win back their country then kick us out.... hey, works for me.

piercehawkeye45;364575 wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/world/middleeast/16reconcile.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1


Iran doesn't have as much influence as you think. Most of the violence comes from Saudi Arabia.

I don't believe the Saudi government is supplying arms that are killing the US troops.

There was something on the news tonight about about more than half the insurgents coming into the country are from Saudi Arabia. Maybe they are bored kids from well off families that can pack up and leave for adventure?

There was something on the news tonight about about more than half the insurgents coming into the country are from Saudi Arabia. Maybe they are bored kids from well off families that can pack up and leave for adventure?

That's entirely possible. Disaffected university kids fighting for a cause.

xoxoxoBruce;364617 wrote:

There was something on the news tonight about about more than half the insurgents coming into the country are from Saudi Arabia. Maybe they are bored kids from well off families that can pack up and leave for adventure?

I have no doubt about that. It is the source for much of the Wahhabist movement and hence an undercurrent of extremism.

TheMercenary;364612 wrote:

I don't believe the Saudi government is supplying arms that are killing the US troops.

Yet, the vast majority of American deaths are from arms that come from Saudi Arabia. The number of deaths resulting from Iranian arms are extremely small and most are most likely just coming from Iranian civilians.

piercehawkeye45;364628 wrote:

Yet, the vast majority of American deaths are from arms that come from Saudi Arabia. The number of deaths resulting from Iranian arms are extremely small and most are most likely just coming from Iranian civilians.

Really? Got something to back that statement up?

DanaC;364622 wrote:

That's entirely possible. Disaffected university kids fighting for a cause.

Could be... I have a feeling in the poorer countries, when the kid starts talking about going off to fight, Pop will slap him up side the head and tell him to worry about putting food on the family table.

These days Rami gets most of his supplies from the new American-equipped Iraqi army. "We buy ammunition from officers in charge of warehouses, a small box of AK-47 bullets is $450 (£230). If the guy sells a thousand boxes he can become rich and leave the country." But as the security situation deteriorates, Rami finds it increasingly difficult to travel across Baghdad. "Now I have to pay a Shia taxi driver to bring the ammo to me. He gets $50 for each shipment."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1989397,00.html

Pierce, this article supports your statements:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-12-08-saudis-sunnis_x.htm

But note my comments above. This is about support by extremists, monetary support, not really governmental material support.

TheMercenary;364629 wrote:

Really? Got something to back that statement up?

Yes, I have posted this article about three times already.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/03/02/insurgency/index1.html

What do you make of the recent furor over the Iran government supposedly arming the militias and killing 170 American soldiers?

It's tragic-funny. There have been over 3,000 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq, which means more than 2,830 people were killed by Sunnis, the real insurgents. The way this has been advertised in the press is incredibly disingenuous. Money and weapons and personnel have been coming across the Saudi and Syrian borders for four years and have been directly aiding Sunni insurgents, who are responsible for the lion's share of U.S. casualties. It's the height of hypocrisy to attack Iran and not criticize Saudi Arabia.

The whole thing is incredibly overblown. If a foreign country invaded Mexico, American weapons would start turning up in Mexico. There may even be senior American officials who are providing weapons to prevent that country from invading us. The Iranians may be doing the same thing. At a maximum, what the Iranian government is doing is arming people they see as their allies to prevent Sunni insurgents from launching attacks on them. Or from a radical Sunni state emerging inside Iraq. They see it as an act of self-defense.

But if you want to know who is responsible for the fact that al-Qaida is succeeding in Iraq, it's Saudi Arabia. The most common nationality of foreign insurgents in Iraq has been Saudis. Where do you think all the money comes from to pay for these operations? It's from Saudi donors.

Do you even read my source Merc?

The media is overblowing Iran's involvement in the war. Of course they will supply arms to Iraq because that is their response to Saudi support. Over 90% of the deaths are a result from Sunni attacks, not Shiite. You can list all the media sources you want but that doesn't mean anything. If you want to argue, show me how the media sources are not overblowing the conflict.

piercehawkeye45;364648 wrote:

Do you even read my source Merc?

The media is overblowing Iran's involvement in the war. Of course they will supply arms to Iraq because that is their response to Saudi support. Over 90% of the deaths are a result from Sunni attacks, not Shiite. You can list all the media sources you want but if you want to argue, show me how the media sources are not overblowing the conflict.

Can't get past the first page of your link due to work filters.

I do not believe that the media is the source of overblowing Irans involvement. I do believe that is a source of spin from the left, that we have nothing to fear from Iran's intrest in seeing us bogged down in a what is essentially a civil war. There is really no evidence that media sources are overblowing their involvement.

This is not a left-winged source. The guy that made this is the leading researcher in Iraqi insurgency.

Here is a bio of him:

For somebody in America, Evan Kohlmann has a remarkably intimate view of the Iraq insurgency. In 2004, he founded GlobalTerrorAlert.com, a clearinghouse of virtually every communiqué -- video, audio, Internet, printed -- issued by insurgent groups in Iraq. For three years, Kohlmann has pored through every one of them, with the help of Arabic translators, and emerged with a clear-eyed view of who is fighting whom in Iraq and why. Given his insights, Kohlmann has been put to work as a consultant by the U.S. Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, the FBI and the CIA.

Spending time in Kohlmann's archives is an extraordinary experience. It strips away the cloudy myths of the insurgency steamed up by U.S. politicians and pundits and leaves you with a bracing portrait of roving insurgent groups, more like neighborhood gangs, with their own identities and insignias, progressively growing more violent. I wanted to talk to Kohlmann for the simple reason that as much as I follow the news about the Iraq war, I have always felt slightly frustrated at not knowing who the enemy really is. Kohlmann says I'm far from alone. And he's talking about people way over my head. "I find it tragic that people in Washington, D.C., who are the heads of major congressional committees, and deciding things about Iraq, don't know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites," he says. Kohlmann insists he is nonpartisan. He spoke from his office in New York.

Evan Kohlmann's comments do not support your comment, "The media is overblowing Iran's involvement in the war." His comments are about the pundits in Washington.

They are both overblowing the situation. If you look at the facts you can see that Iran is not doing anything close to as bad as the Saudis are.

The liberal bias in the media is overblowing the fact that they think the government is over blowing the actions of Iran. Did you even read any of the links I posted? There is direct evidence that Irainian weapons are killing US and British troops. The borders are pourous.

Once again, you fail to process what I have given you.

First, I have not posted any left-winged source.

Second, the leading researcher in field said:

The whole thing is incredibly overblown. If a foreign country invaded Mexico, American weapons would start turning up in Mexico. There may even be senior American officials who are providing weapons to prevent that country from invading us. The Iranians may be doing the same thing. At a maximum, what the Iranian government is doing is arming people they see as their allies to prevent Sunni insurgents from launching attacks on them. Or from a radical Sunni state emerging inside Iraq. They see it as an act of self-defense.

Lets put this to a situation we can relate too. Lets say the Soviet Union was still strong and they invaded Mexico. Do you really think American weapons would not be in Mexico? Iran see both Sunnis and Americans as threats just as you see both Stalinism and Soviets as threats. The Sunnis are getting backed from Saudi Arabia and the Shiites are getting back (at lot less backing mind you) by Iran and yet we focus all the attention on Iran. Can you not see that double standard?

Once again, you fail to process what I have given back to you.

I did not say that the author or his site were from a left-winged source. I said your position that the media were behind it was. And I stated that your post did not support your statement;

"The media is overblowing Iran's involvement in the war."

I fully understand the motivation of the people in Saudi Arabia. Don't delude yourself. The discussion is about the strength of the influence of Iranian involvement. Which you believe, based on this single source, to be not significant. I say that there is evidence which is surfacing that such a notion is false.

My source does back up that statement.

What do you make of the recent furor over the Iran government supposedly arming the militias and killing 170 American soldiers?

That means both the government officials and the media.

"TheMercenary" wrote:

I say that there is evidence which is surfacing that such a notion is false.

This is where it becomes very complicated. No one is going to deny Iran involvement but then why do we pick them out when there influence, even if it has been growing, is much less than Saudi influence.

I have read your sources and they seem to imply that the Iranian influence is getting stronger, which makes sense to a response and equalizer of stronger Saudi support. I am not saying that there is no Iranian support or denying that it is getting stronger, just that it has no comparison to Saudi support and your sources don't compare it to Saudi support.

Lets take a hypothetical example (the number mean nothing except representing support):
Month 1:
-Saudi Support: 10
-Iranian Support: 2

Month 2:
-Saudi Support: 20
-Iranian Support: 5

Now if the media just comments on Iranian support it seems that Iranian support has greatly increased but as long as they don't compare it to Saudi support, that is very misleading since Saudi support has increased by 10 when Iran has only grown by 3.

Your examples are hypothetical at best. We really don't disagree except on what you and I believe are the weight of whom is influencing whom. The problem with the money trail is that it is not just Iraq where the money and weapons end up. The trail is basically as speculative as is the source of material goods. Much of the money out of Saudi could also be going to Afgan, Paki's, and Indonesian insurgencies. Most experts agree that the method of transfering monies through the money changers is impossible to trace. If it were easy we most likely could have cut the head off this snake a long time ago.

TheMercenary;364697 wrote:

Your examples are hypothetical at best.

"Lets take a hypothetical example (the number mean nothing except representing support):" :D

We really don't disagree except on what you and I believe are the weight of whom is influencing whom.

That and probably the perspective we are looking at it from.

Another interesting view of Iranian intentions:

http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/byman/20070218.htm

Maybe we should give him a second chance to prove his point. . .

TheMercenary;364702 wrote:

Another interesting view of Iranian intentions:

http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/byman/20070218.htm

First, this is the propaganda I was talking about. The facts are not what I disagree with, I bet everything this guy says is true, it is just he makes it off like Iran is the only one doing it so it is somehow bad.
[list]
[*]The article does not once mention Sunni involvement.
[*]The article does not mention that the US has done the same thing as Iran is doing.
[*]The article does not mention why Iranians are anti-American.
[*]The article does not mention any deep analysis on.
[*]The article just takes the Iranian perspective and not the whole Middle East's perspective.
[/list]
The article starts out by mentioning how bad Iran has been in the past to set the scene. I won't disagree that it is fact, just that it sets the mood for the rest of the article and you have remember that the US has supplied terrorist groups weapons as well to fight groups that have threatened our interests.

That is basically what everything comes down too, protecting interests. Iran, along with the rest of the Middle East, does not want US influence so to single out Iran is flawed. Yes, Iran will fight the US occupation but so are the Sunni nationalists and so are the Sunni Extremists, it isn't something that Iran is doing by itself. Along with past US-Iranian relations, this is not something that should be surprising or something that we should see as a direct attack against us. All this shows is that they want our influence out of the Middle East just like Europeans do not want their influence there.

Besides that, this article even says that the Shiites are not attacking Americans, but Sunnis. This shows directly that the civil war is the main cause for the Iranian arms in Iraq, not the American occupation even though that does have some effect.

"from article" wrote:

Tehran does not want the secular and pro-Western Iraq that America dreams of, and it wants to ensure that the U.S. doctrine of preventive regime change is dead.

No one in the Middle East wants a secular and pro-Western Iraq that America dreams of. This is just mentioning Iran and never in the article does it say that Iraqis or Saudis do not want a secular pro-Western Iraq as well.

Everything else that the article mentions is common sense. Of course Iran wants influence in Iraq, everyone wants influence in Iraq. That is the reason why we attacked Iraq in the first place, to spread our influence. But they give Iran a negative connotation when they do it as well, why?

My real question is why is Iran being attacked for doing something that everyone else is doing?

How about because Iran is nothing remotely resembling a democracy? How about because Iran's ruling oligarchy is determinedly anti-US, and thus likely in any case to oppose our interests, whatever they may be? These would seem reason enough for us at least to view Iran's actions with a jaundiced eye, and take measures to counter them.

And of course, anything that gouges an undemocrat's eye is good for democracy. It keeps the undemocrats helpless, and that is what the real democrats want.

It's not our place.

Now you already know I can't believe that one. I want a good world, and that means a world full of democracies. Nothing else need apply, for nothing else is so legitimate.

That calls for shooting the highly motivated sociopaths who would set up sociopathic states.

How is Iran not like a democracy UG?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Iran

It isn't like any of the western democracies but it is still a republic with heavy Islamic influences.

Now you already know I can't believe that one. I want a good world, and that means a world full of democracies. Nothing else need apply, for nothing else is so legitimate.

The communists said the same thing, same concept of intolerance, different perspective.

Too bad the problem is that some non-western cultures do not accept western styles democracies like the west does. Why? Different cultures with different priorities. Bush learned this the hard way and you still have not learned.

Urbane Guerrilla;364782 wrote:

Now you already know I can't believe that one. I want a good world, and that means a world full of democracies. Nothing else need apply, for nothing else is so legitimate.

That calls for shooting the highly motivated sociopaths who would set up sociopathic states.

Quack.

piercehawkeye45;364762 wrote:

First, this is the propaganda I was talking about. The facts are not what I disagree with, I bet everything this guy says is true, it is just he makes it off like Iran is the only one doing it so it is somehow bad.

I believe you have read to much into it. His article makes some assumptions which I believe are generally correct. He kept his focus on Iran, not because there are not other issues to be considered, but because that was the focus of his article.

Or thats what he wants us to focus on. I think pierce has some very valid points, ane perhaps we are looking too much at Iran and not hard enough at our "allies." Why concentrate our focus on Iran when the Saudis are supplying/killing - whatever - more Americans than Iranians. Maybe they WANT us to look at Iran because of the nuke issue - I dunno. Just throwin it out there.

Saudis much good... give heap big oil to infidels.

Getting back to the beginning of this thread - maybe this is why they bake children and/or do whatever else they want - to control!!

"Once the terrorists stitch up highways and innumerable roads and entire cities with bombs, they have tremendous clout with the locals, because only the bad guys know where all the bombs are, and they can kill at will those who resist, including, if needed, busfuls of people."

Individual Saudi morons will always stream across the border to blow up the infidels, but on the Iranian border it's the official government doing the streaming, and they won't stop when the infidels leave.

yesman065;365005 wrote:

Getting back to the beginning of this thread - maybe this is why they bake children and/or do whatever else they want - to control!!

"Once the terrorists stitch up highways and innumerable roads and entire cities with bombs, they have tremendous clout with the locals, because only the bad guys know where all the bombs are, and they can kill at will those who resist, including, if needed, busfuls of people."

I know where you got that quote.

Thanks xoB - I copied it to include in something else, was rushed and closed the window. Oh well it was another VERY GOOD article - IMO.

There never was a fascist duck, Bruce dear. I told you that already.

I like eggs. Even duck eggs.

Pierce, find out how Iran is like an oligarchy, and get back to me.

If you're going to try beating me on political science, you'll need to be better at it than I am.

If you're going to try beating me on political science, you'll need to be better at it than I am.

That made me laugh out loud.

Urbane Guerrilla;365209 wrote:

Pierce, find out how Iran is like an oligarchy, and get back to me.

UG, find me a democracy or republic that is not like an oligarchy, and get back to me.

Iran is far from democratic. They have elements which appear democratic, that does not make the Iranian government democratic.

The United States and the United Kingdom for two, pierce. Indeed, the entire list of English-primary nations. Look "oligarchy" up and see how much Iran resembles that definition. The mullahs and only the mullahs rule.

Cynics will yell about "The (ruling) Establishment," pointedly excluding themselves therefrom to bolster their case. Said cynics are never EVER caught running for office, much less catching one. We can safely ignore them.

Cynics will yell about "The (ruling) Establishment," pointedly excluding themselves therefrom to bolster their case. Said cynics are never EVER caught running for office, much less catching one. We can safely ignore them.

I'm a cynic, I say 'The (ruling) Establishment' and the tiny, tiny percentage of the population who wield any real power or influence, runs this country of mine. I also ran for office in 2006 (and won) and will be running again in 2008.

So yet again UG, you are talking out of your anus.

Al-Qaeda faces rebellion from the ranks
"Fed up with being part of a group that cuts off a person’s face with piano wire to teach others a lesson, dozens of low-level members of al-Qaeda in Iraq are daring to become informants for the US military in a hostile Baghdad neighbourhood.

The ground-breaking move in Doura is part of a wider trend that has started in other al-Qaeda hotspots across the country and in which Sunni insurgent groups and tribal sheikhs have stood together with the coalition against the extremist movement.

“They are turning. We are talking to people who we believe have worked for al-Qaeda in Iraq and want to reconcile and have peace,” said Colonel Ricky Gibbs, commander of the 4th Brigade, 1st Infantry Division, which oversees the area.

The secretive group, however, appears to be losing its grip as a “surge” of US troops in the neighbourhood – part of the latest effort by President Bush to end the chaos in Iraq – has resulted in scores of fighters being killed, captured or forced to flee. "

Perhaps some positive progress from Iraq?

DanaC;365614 wrote:

I'm a cynic, I say 'The (ruling) Establishment' and the tiny, tiny percentage of the population who wield any real power or influence, runs this country of mine. I also ran for office in 2006 (and won) and will be running again in 2008.

So yet again UG, you are talking out of your anus.

Sounds to me like you're in that tiny, tiny percentage -- even if it's a tiny, tiny percentage of the wielding that you're doing.

Sounds to me like you're in that tiny, tiny percentage -- even if it's a tiny, tiny percentage of the wielding that you're doing.

You are mistaking 'office' for power and influence, and 'establishment' for government. This is Britain, we still have people sitting in our Upper House by tradition and patronage, rather than by ballot.

We are also, like America, Anglo-Saxon in many of our cultural assumptions and so our big-business class is extremely powerful.

Every part of our country is divided into little blocks ('wards') of about 6,000 people. Each ward elects 3 councillors, to represent them in the local council. My council has 51 councillors. Sounds very ...democratic and accountable, except most areas of real local power have been removed from the Councils (or sold by Councils) and placed into unaccountable hands ('Trusts', 'Academies', 'Primary Care Trusts', Housing Associations').

The Ruling Establishment in Britain, has always kept Englishmen convinced of the superiority of their freedoms by allowing them such local, small, expressions of community power.

yesman065;366792 wrote:

Perhaps some positive progress from Iraq?

Hopefully, if this sort of thing takes off Iraq will become a much safer place and the unification of fighting Al Qaeda would be very helpful. Even better is that we may go out as enemies as well.

I am hoping and praying that we start to turn the corner here - It still amazes me that the mainstream press doesn't seem to want to cover these types of things and simply prefers to keep counting the dead and beating the same old drum.

CNN has had two stories on it so far that I have found, I posted them somewhere on here, I forget where.

I think it has a lot to do with the fact that we are working with the "enemy" that has been shooting at us for the past four years, at least why Fox doesn't.

Really?? Let me know where - I missed it too.

Thanks Merc, but thats the same as MY link - Pierce had a different reference - I thought.

The logic works if Al Qaeda was some big monolithic organization in Iraq. Al Qaeda never really existed. What is called Al Qaeda (and we hear new reporters noting this as they talk about Al Qaeda) was really many independent groups with no relationship to each other but for one thing - many call themselves Al Qaeda.

Understand the philosophy in Iraq. The enemy of my enemy is my enemy. Sunnis attack Sunnis. Shia attack Sunnis. Sunnis attack Kurds. Shia attack Shia. Why give up information? It may cause the Americans to attack their enemy. Welcome to the civil war that analysts in the State Department warned of in 2002.

yesman065;366994 wrote:

Thanks Merc, but thats the same as MY link - Pierce had a different reference - I thought.

Sorry about that. :redface:

tw;366995 wrote:

The logic works if Al Qaeda was some big monolithic organization in Iraq. Al Qaeda never really existed. What is called Al Qaeda (and we hear new reporters noting this as they talk about Al Qaeda) was really many independent groups with no relationship to each other but for one thing - many call themselves Al Qaeda.

Understand the philosophy in Iraq. The enemy of my enemy is my enemy. Sunnis attack Sunnis. Shia attack Sunnis. Sunnis attack Kurds. Shia attack Shia. Why give up information? It may cause the Americans to attack their enemy. Welcome to the civil war that analysts in the State Department warned of in 2002.

Uh isn't that the enemy of my FRIEND is my enemy?? OR the enemy of my enemy is my friend??

Thats why this is so interesting - these former enemies are allegedly turning against Al Q.

The Al Qaeda composition was recently discussed in a post from last week - it is true that there is no "central organization" but many of the cells/groups are loosely connected and were referred to as "franchises." Very interesting, but nothing new.

Yesman - here is the link

http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=364017&postcount=33

piercehawkeye45;367187 wrote:

Yesman - here is the link

http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=364017&postcount=33

Thank you.

For an example of the mullahs and only the mullahs ruling in Iran, and keeping Iran from any semblance of being a democracy, here's something David Frum quotes:

A few weeks ago, the veteran Newsweek reporter Michael Hirsh wrote a series of online diary entries from Iran that convincingly argued for American engagement with Tehran. Hirsh found Iran to be less repressive than one might expect, reporting that women find stylish ways around the regime’s dress code, the recent arrests of four Iranian-American scholars “scarcely provoke much discussion,” and the crackdown on dissent “is most often accomplished in subtle rather than savage ways.” Hirsh’s entry for June 20th called Iran “a country that supposedly puts dissenters in jail.” Even a cleric in Qom took Hirsh to task for not being critical enough.

Meanwhile, on July 9th, fifteen Iranian students and the mother of another were beaten and jailed after demonstrating in commemoration of an assault on student activists in 1999.

On July 10th, the leader of an independent trade union, who spent most of last year in prison, was abducted from a Tehran bus.

On July 11th, the Iranian judiciary banned a moderate news agency, just a few days after shutting down a newspaper that had resumed publication only two months earlier, following a seven-year ban.

In the spring, a hundred and fifty thousand Iranians were briefly detained for wearing clothes or hairstyles deemed un-Islamic. According to the Christian Science Monitor, “Iranian news organizations have been instructed not to report negative news regarding social unrest, gas rationing in the world’s fourth-largest oil exporter, the nuclear program, or the impact of U.N. sanctions on Iran.” Recently, Iran has lifted a moratorium on stoning, and has ramped up the number of executions of adulterers, homosexuals, and minors. Westerners in Iran report that Iranians no longer can accept invitations to cultural exchanges, overseas conferences, or social events at which Western diplomats will be present. Those who do are seen by the state as collaborating with the enemy.

This new crackdown by the regime is, Iran experts say, as severe as any in two decades. Women’s-rights activists, students, trade unionists, journalists, and those with connections to the West are under assault by the full extent of the state’s repressive apparatus—the judiciary, the Revolutionary Guards, the Basij militia. Torture of the growing number of political prisoners is routine.

Why did a journalist as experienced as Michael Hirsh not notice? Because, justifiably arguing for dialogue and against fantasies of easy regime change, he wants to be able to say that things are not as bad as you think in Iran. The truth is, things are worse than you think for any Iranian who tries to exercise minimal political rights. Just as the neoconservatives concocted a simple case on Iraq and, now, Iran—claiming that the locals would welcome regime change from outside—people like Hirsh want to make a simple case, too. It’s a great temptation to say that, because X is true, Y, which seems to point in a different direction from X, must be false. We all want total vindication. But in politics there is no total vindication, on Iran or anything else. The regime there is brutal, and we should talk to it.

Scroll down about a third of the way.

I don't think anyone is saying Iran has a nice regime. Just like Iraq, the people have to decide if they want a change, a military action only concentrates their anger on us rather than the mullahs. David "Axis of Evil" Frum is hardly the guy to go to for unbiased commentary. We need to pull his green card.

Excerpt from an interview with Michael Yon (7-12-07)

HH: Now yesterday, Harry Reid said on the floor of the Senate that the surge has failed. Do you think there’s any factual basis for making that assertion, Michael Yon, from what you’ve seen in Iraq over the last many months?

MY: He’s wrong, he’s wrong. It has absolutely not failed, and in fact, I’m finally willing to say it in public. I feel like it’s starting to succeed. And you know, I’m kind of stretching a little bit, because we haven’t gone too far into it, but I can see it from my travels around, for instance, in Anbar and out here in Diyala Province as well. Baghdad’s still very problematic. But there’s other areas where you can clearly see that there is a positive effect. And the first and foremost thing we have to do is knock down al Qaeda. And with them alienating so many Iraqis, I mean, they’re almost doing it for us. I mean, yeah, it takes military might to finally like wipe them out of Baquba, but it’s working. I mean, I sense that the surge is working. Reid is just wrong.

I hope Yon's right.

I posted this in another thread, but I think it really belongs here...

A War We Just Might Win
By MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK
Published: July 30, 2007

I'm sure the grunts were tired of chasing ghosts with no discernible progress, with no strategy, plan or goal.

Yon is a blogger, beholding to nobody except the people that read his blog and contribute to his expenses.
He understands the military and the internal politics that make it tick... as well as the necessity of the media for winning hearts and minds. Not only here but more importantly in the middle East.
With his background and contacts, he is is a perfect position to be a shill for the pentagon and/or the administration.

That said, I trust his judgment and his reporting.

Having followed his reports for a couple years, I'm absolutely convinced he is reporting the true situation as honestly as he can. From the git go, he has pointed out the successes and failures of our policies and actions, in Afghanistan and Iraq.
He was quick to say we were leaving Afghanistan half finished, and Iraq had devolved to civil war. He did so without walking away in disgust, but looked for signs the leadership was getting a clue while continuing to report on the difficult job the US and Brit units were doing. He also reports on the various tribes, their peculiarities, and there relations with other tribes and our troops.
I've yet to see a tiny speck of him having any agenda beyond telling the truth.

xoxoxoBruce;369631 wrote:

That said, I trust his judgment and his reporting.

I agree with alll of that, Bruce. But Yon is just one person. His reports are limited to what he is able to see himself. I won't say his reporting is purely anecdotal, because he does talk to a lot of people, but I'd feel much better if there were 100 Yons based all over Iraq, reporting what they see. Then I'd trust the big picture better.

The big picture to me is:

1. The Administration says things aren't that bad. I wish I could believe them, but they have lied so often in the past, their words have no value.

2. The media keeps reporting on all the violence, various car bombs, and the civil war, etc. etc. I see no progress in the war there.

3. Yon says things might not be so bad. They are moving very slowly in the right direction. I trust Yon, but I don't trust that he knows it all.

If the war is winnable (for a reasonable cost in blood and money,) then we should stay. We created this mess, so we should fix it. But if we are not making progress, then we should cut our losses and leave. I've said a couple times that I don't see any progress. Since then, Dwellars have posted a couple of stories and Yon blogs that hint at progress. I hope it's true, but I remain unconvinced. The stories coming out if Iraq are overwhelmingly negative.

You're right in there should be at least 100 Yons to cover the country, although he does get around a lot, traveling with the top non-com in the army.

I wonder if the reporting on all the violence, various car bombs, and the civil war, is mostly second hand reports, from deep in the Green Zone. Do they really know what's happening in the hinterlands? The old, build a thousand bridges and one falls down, which one makes the papers, routine.

I'm certainly not saying there isn't a shitload of trouble over there, or that there is a way to stabilize the country... or that I could personally do anything if there is. I'm just looking for reliable sources of information on what's happening and I believe Yon to be one.

Of course there is no reliable source on the big picture, except tw... he told me so.

xoxoxoBruce;369656 wrote:

Of course there is no reliable source on the big picture, except tw... he told me so.

FACT: 85% of mental midgets confuse their emotions with reality.[COLOR="White"] . . . . . . . . . . . . . [/COLOR][SIZE="1"] [COLOR="Gray"]I can't do it as good as glatt.[/COLOR][/SIZE]

Its not your fault Flint, 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management.

What is considered winning the war in Iraq?

The middle east is like a fight between a bunch of scrags.

You watch from the outside and you feel like you should do something, but you know if you get drawn in, you're only going to be one of the scrags.

I don't understand why the people who wield power and influence don't see that.

piercehawkeye45;369807 wrote:

What is considered winning the war in Iraq?

Removing top management...

:rotflol:

What is considered winning the war in Iraq?

Griff;369852 wrote:

Removing top management...

Which is what happened when Rumsfeld was removed and when generals got their independence from a White House political agenda.

Meanwhile, what Yon has posted is also what O'Hanlon and Pollack stated in a 'White House promoted' commentary and what Petraeus was saying. It does not mean "Mission Accomplished" is being won. Concepts behind what each is saying discussed in this post in Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone.

Nothing even in Yon's report says anything about winning the war. Only a fool who did not learn from Nam would make that assumption. Even Petraeus was saying that repeatedly. He can win the battles but he cannot win the war.

Meanwhile troops are now doing some nation building in a country where one in three is now destitute - in need of welfare – during a time when George Jr said we were winning. So what did we win?

piercehawkeye45;369807 wrote:

What is considered winning the war in Iraq?

All the oil & natural gas in Western company's hands.

tw;369961 wrote:

Nothing even in Yon's report says anything about winning the war. Only a fool who did not learn from Nam would make that assumption. Even Petraeus was saying that repeatedly. He can win the battles but he cannot win the war.

Good point and worth repeating. At no point did Yon say we were winning this war. He reports successes and failures as he sees them, nothing more.

My opinion... only the Iraqis can win or lose this war.

Here is another guy that had some positive things to say about whats happening in Iraq. I know nothing about him other than what is here.

The battalion I’m embedded with here in Baghdad hasn’t suffered a single casualty – not even one soldier wounded – since they arrived in the Red Zone in January. The surge in this part of the city could not possibly be going better than it already is. Most of Graya’at’s insurgents and terrorists who haven’t yet fled are either captured, dormant, or dead.
~~~~~~~~~~
“Because they’re MAMs who are driving,” he said. “We’re going easy on everyone else. We’ve already oppressed these people enough. They have a night culture in the summer, so if they aren’t military aged males driving cars we leave them alone. We were very heavy-handed in 2003. Now we’re trying to move forward together. At least 90 percent of them are normal fun-loving people.”
~~~~~~~~~~
“Most of what we’re doing doesn’t get reported in the media,” he said. “We’re not fighting a war here anymore, not in this area. We’ve moved way beyond that stage. We built a soccer field for the kids, bought all kinds of equipment, bought them school books and even chalk. Soon we’re installing 1,500 solar street lamps so they have light at night and can take some of the load off the power grid. The media only covers the gruesome stuff. We go to the sheiks and say hey man, what kind of projects do you want in this area? They give us a list and we submit the paperwork. When the projects get approved, we give them the money and help them buy stuff.”

Not everything they do is humanitarian work, unless you consider counter-terrorism humanitarian work. In my view, you should. Few Westerners think of personal security as a human right, but if you show up in Baghdad I’ll bet you will. Personal security may, in fact, be the most important human right. Without it the others mean little. People aren’t free if they have to hide.

There is a ton more -

Good link, thanks.

Good article and, once again, a completely different perspective about the situation in Iraq.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18120.htm


08/05/07 "Washington Post" -- -- -When will I die? That's the question circling in my head when I awake on Wednesday. I'm sweating, as usual. My muscles ache from another long night of no electricity in weather only slightly cooler than hell. As I dress for work, other questions assail me: How will I die? Will it be a shot in the head? Will I be blown to pieces? Or be seized at a police checkpoint because of my sect, then tortured and killed and thrown out on the sidewalk?

I gaze at my wife as she sleeps, her face twisted in discomfort from the heat. What will happen to her if I die? Soon she'll have no one in Iraq but me. Will she be able to identify my body? Will I get a proper burial?

I'm a dentist in my mid-20s, married to an aspiring dentist. My father is a prominent orthopedist who fled Iraq after being threatened by both Sunni radicals in al-Qaeda in Iraq (which wanted to recruit him and extorted money for his life when he refused) and Shiite ones in Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army (because he is a Sunni). My father-in-law, who works in the oil ministry, has also been menaced; he will leave the country at the end of this month.

In fact, my wife and I left Iraq in July 2006 and went to Jordan. But I wasn't able to find any work there, so we came back to Baghdad. Now we live here as quietly as possible, keeping a low profile. I don't use my family name anymore. (And I am not using my full name for this piece.)

I walk to my job at a government clinic 15 minutes from my home at the intersection of a Sunni and a Shiite neighborhood. We've had lots of bombings nearby. On my way, I see the hulks of burned-out cars. Barbed wire and concrete blocks line the streets. The ground is strewn with bullet casings. Death is in the air. A car passes me slowly in an alley, my heart beats rapidly and I pray that I won't be kidnapped or asked what sect I belong to.

At the clinic's gate, I greet the guards. (I'm afraid of them; they might be members of a militia. Here in Baghdad, everyone's suspect until proven otherwise.) I sign in and get the bad news: The diesel generator is almost out of fuel. We have enough for about one more day, and my boss thinks it could be a month or longer before the ministry of health will provide us any more.

How can we treat our patients? I ask angrily. My boss shrugs. We were already short of supplies. I feel bad for the patients, some of whom are really in pain, so I work as fast as I can. The clinic is open from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., and we have five dentists and three chairs. Normally, we can take 15 patients a day, but on this day, I treat eight myself.


* * *

I'm proud of my work today as I head home, where, as usual, there is no electricity.

In my neighborhood (and most of Baghdad), we depend on ourselves for power. In most places, there's someone who owns a large generator and sells other residents eight hours of electricity a day. I pay $120 a month for that service. For an additional three hours a day, I use my home generator. That costs me about $150 a month because fuel here is so expensive. We have to wait six to eight hours in line to get any at the gas stations, which close at 6 or 7 p.m. The curfew starts at 11 p.m., so many people sleep in their cars until the stations reopen in the morning. This farce has created a booming black market in which fuel sells for double its official price.

Over lunch, my wife, who has just finished the final exams for her last year of dental school, tells me how scared, bored and hopeless she feels. How long will we stay in Iraq? she asks me. Until one of us dies?

If we leave again, I want to go to a country where we might have a future. I want children, but I promised myself that I wouldn't have any as long as I'm living in Iraq. My children don't deserve to be born in this country. I won't make the mistake my parents made.

Later that day, we go shopping for food. This is the only entertainment we have in our lives, apart from the Internet. It's so hot. I wish I could go out in shorts. But the militias don't allow it. It's too much to ask in Iraq. It's too much to ask to be able to wear a goatee or a gold necklace. It's too much to ask to drive my BMW because I could be killed for it. There's too much that's too much to ask for in Baghdad.

We have fun at the market, but on the way back, a pickup truck drives by with a dead body in the back.


* * *

On Thursday before dawn, an explosion rocks our house. I lie in bed, unable to get back to sleep, until it's time to get up for work.

When I arrive at the clinic, my fellow dentists are sitting on chairs in the yard. That means we are out of diesel. We'll have four hours with nothing to do (because we're required to stay at work even if we can't do any work), so I join them. The talk turns to the situation in Baghdad and the U.S. presence here.

"As soon as the Americans leave Iraq, Iranian jets will be over Baghdad bombarding every neighborhood that is not loyal to them, whether Shiite or Sunni," one of the doctors says. I offer my opinion: "The U.S. should stay, because it's not just Iran or neighboring countries that we have to fear. The Iraqi National Guard and the police are also our enemies now."

In contrast, many uneducated or less educated Iraqis think that the U.S. military is at the root of every problem. They believe that if the Americans leave, there will be peace. I agree, up to a point, that U.S. troops are responsible for some of the trouble we have, but I don't blame them. I blame the Iraqis who let this happen, who enjoy destruction and death -- the sectarian government and the militias. They are the real cause of this tragedy.

We talk about the insurgents and the militias, both Sunni and Shiite, and about sectarian violence, which is skyrocketing. So are civilian casualties and the government's lies, which are supposed to convince the world that it's doing its job, that it's winning victories against terrorism and that the terrorists are fleeing Iraq. Aren't they ashamed of themselves? The only ones fleeing Iraq are good, honest Iraqis.

"What do the insurgents want?" another doctor asks. "What have they achieved after all those explosions and all those people dead?"

They have achieved nothing that a sane person would consider an achievement, I respond. They've made the country impossible to live in; they've terrorized people, killed Americans, made us afraid to leave our homes. They've taken control of neighborhoods after the people who lived there fled for their lives. All of this is an achievement to them, but not to a sane person like you or me. They have been brainwashed by fanatical religious clerics; they have been tempted by the money that flows from Iran and other countries or that they get from kidnapping and crime.

In the end, we all agree: The only losers are honest, patriotic Iraqi people. For them, democracy, liberation and freedom are just myths. All we want is to live a normal life.

When I get back from work, my wife and I take a taxi to Adhamiya, the district where my father-in-law lives. We normally spend Thursday and Friday with him. The driver, as usual, is afraid to enter the neighborhood, so he leaves us at the gate in Antar Square and we walk from there.

As we make our way to my father-in-law's house, a confrontation starts behind us. We dash into an alley. I relive in my mind what happened the previous week: A sniper from the Iraqi National Guard shot at us and forced us to cower in a ruined building for what seemed like hours. It was on the same street, the only open road that leads to Adhamiya. People call it the "street of death."

We finally make it to my father-in-law's. After dinner, we decide to sleep upstairs, but just as my head hits the pillow, there's an explosion in front of the house, followed by gunfire all around. We rush downstairs, where it's safer, and sleep on the floor. We spend another day full of nonstop explosions and gunfire at my father-in-law's before heading back home at noon on Saturday.


* * *

Sunday is a beautiful day. My wife and I make popcorn, sip cola and watch the Iraqi national soccer team beat Saudi Arabia 1 to 0 in the final for the Asian Cup. My neighborhood erupts in celebratory gunfire. Why don't the shooters think about where their bullets might go when they hit the ground? Two people are killed and six are wounded from falling rounds.

After the shooting stops, I head out to buy cigarettes. I am amazed by what I see. There's unity at last. People stream from Adhamiya and al-Saab and al-Kahira and meet at the al-Nidaa mosque intersection. They are celebrating on the same spot where on other days confrontations erupt, blood flows and people die. An Iraqi National Guard convoys rolls through, with soldiers dancing on top of the Humvees. I laugh out loud and feel safe for the first time since returning to Iraq.

I hurry home to get my wife and the digital camera. We head out to Palestine Street to watch the crowd and snap pictures. Then my wife gets an uneasy look on her face. All these people, she says, might attract a suicide bomber. We go home.

On the news that night: 16 people dead and 66 injured in Zaiona; 10 dead and an unknown number injured in Mansor. They were innocents celebrating the victory of their soccer team. Can't they give us one happy day? Is that too much to ask? May God have mercy on their souls.


* * *

The next day, dozens more die across my country. This has become normal. We're used to it. Iraqi lives are worth nothing; we're just numbers in the news. In the past, Iraqis would wear black to mourn a young man for many years. They would cry forever. But not anymore. Now we bury in the morning and forget by the evening.

On Tuesday, my wife gets her grades from dental school. She has done well. I am so happy that I vow to confront terrorism and live a normal life for one day. I decide to drive my own car and take my wife to a nice lunch at the only good restaurant left in Baghdad. I leave work early, head home and remove the cover from my car for the first time in a year. And with it, I remove my fear.

Oh, how I've missed my BMW. When I tell my wife that we're taking the car, she is afraid, but I convince her that nothing will happen. It's just one day, I say. For once, we'll live like normal people. I drive to the restaurant and feel so happy -- and fearful at the same time. But we arrive safely, although I'm stopped at a police checkpoint and asked about my sect. Normally, they just ask where you live or where you're heading, which are also clues, but this time they ask me directly. I have to lie, but luckily I have a neutral name that isn't obviously either Sunni or Shiite.

We have a wonderful time at lunch. But much later, after I finally go to bed at 3 a.m., after the neighborhood generator stops, the eternal questions start up again. Will it ever end? When will I die?

Hopefully soon ...

Bread and a Circus

Michael Yon wrote:

Sunni and Shia actually get along well in many places. Many neighborhoods are mixed, families are mixed. They do not react hypergolically. They are not anti-matter and matter meeting for the first time. Military units are often mixed and work well together. But of course there would not be so much talk about the sectarian divide and there would not be all the mosques blowing up and so forth if there were not great truth in those words.

Arrowhead Ripper had ripped out the heart of al Qaeda in Baqubah, but not before they had successfully deepened a rift between Shia and Sunni. What would it look like in Arab press outside of Iraq? Perhaps, “Shia-Dominated Government Declines Food Request for Sunnis in Iraq.” Al Qaeda would win another media victory partly because they play the media like a Stradivarius. Then, driving that wedge just that extra smidgen forward, they might say Moqtada al Sadr himself controlled the food (and he probably does to some extent).

The new plan actually seems to be working despite the hysterical reporting back home. We need more Tontos in Hollywood, in the media and in the Congress. We’ve got plenty in the military.

And so we started with 16 trucks, but before it was all over, they had sent 94 trucks of food to Baqubah. There was enough food, according to our Army, to feed 200,000 people for 30 days.

I recalled one of the bureaucrat’s comments, upon hearing that al Qaeda had scattered like rabbits out of Baqubah. He seemed at first not to believe that news, but once he got confirmation, he made a point to tell us what that news actually meant: if al Qaeda was done in Baqubah, al Qaeda was done in Iraq.

And a bit more, from January this year.

Ripped dripping from elsewhere on Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler:

Some are born free. Some have freedom thrust upon them. Others simply surrender.

So, who's which?

They sell T-shirts too. Among other things, one of them quips:

"Fun Facts About Terrorists: . . . They enjoy blowing themselves up. We enjoy blowing them up. You'd think we'd get along better."

The Turning Tide In Iraq

“The only thing this surge will accomplish is a surge of more death and destruction.” That was the prediction of blogger and anti-war activist Arianna Huffington back in December of last year — one month before the Senate unanimously confirmed Gen. David Petraeus as commander in Iraq.

"I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything.” That was the judgment of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in April — two months before the reinforcements General Petraeus needed to fully implement his new “surge” strategy had arrived in Iraq.

In mid-June, just as troop strength was reaching the level needed to carry out the revised mission, Senator Reid added: “As many had foreseen, the escalation has failed to produce the intended results."

But now those intended results are being seen — as even some critics of the war, to their credit, are acknowledging. “More American troops have brought more peace to more parts of Iraq. I think that’s a fact,” Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., told reporters.
“My sense is that the tactical momentum is there with the troops,” Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., said to PBS’s Charlie Rose.

The debate over the war in Iraq is shifting, though more slowly than is the war in Iraq, thanks to a well-funded and determined anti-war movement and too many in the media for whom good news is no news.

Al-Qaeda faces rebellion from the ranks
Sickened by the group’s barbarity, Iraqi insurgents are giving information to coalition forces

See what happens when you get too big of a head...

It explodes.


Very good news for both American soldiers and just as importantly, the Iraqi people.

The mainstream media and the democratic party seem eerily quiet since some positive things seem to be happening. Rather sad.

That's why I haven't voted for a Democratic candidate since sometime-I-can't-remember in the last century: no visible interest in the Republic's interest, which is a hell of a goddam note during a shooting war.

Out of interest Yesman: what do you consider 'mainstream' media? which outlets have been disturbingly quiet? Do you have an example of a non-mainstream media?

Urbane Guerrilla;377220 wrote:

That's why I haven't voted for a Democratic candidate since sometime-I-can't-remember in the last century: no visible interest in [s]the Republic's[/s] my interests, which is a hell of a goddam note during a shooting war.

Well I guess that is logical.

DanaC;377229 wrote:

Out of interest Yesman: what do you consider 'mainstream' media? which outlets have been disturbingly quiet? Do you have an example of a non-mainstream media?

The media that reaches the vast majority of the population - the big three TV networks and the largest newspapers like those owned by the Gannett Company, Inc.

Smaller independent outlets - cable news, independent internet outlets and the like.

I'm sure they will all report the helicopter crash that happened yesterday though which killed 14 servicemen, and they should, but they seem more focused on the negativities of the situation to drive ratings and revenues.

From ABC News of 22 Aug 2007:

The President's Surprising Rationale for the Iraq War: Vietnam
Bush avoided comparison with Vietnam for two reasons, said Thomas Biersteker, a professor of international relations at Brown University and a Vietnam War expert.

"He chose to distance himself from Vietnam because of his own lack of involvement and because Vietnam is generally not considered a resounding success in popular memory. It is striking that he has begun to rely on arguments strikingly similar to those of Richard Nixon," Biersteker told ABCNEWS.com...

"I think it's really regrettable to me that the president really has learned nothing from Vietnam," said Bernie Reilly, a West Point graduate, Vietnam vet and father of a son who has served tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"It is perfectly right to compare Iraq with Vietnam," said Barry Romo of Vietnam Veterans Against the War. "We got into Vietnam with a lie about the Gulf of Tonkin incident and we got into Iraq with a lie about WMD."

An AP(?) report details the irony in George Jr's latest speech.

Over the past year, Bush has tempered his endorsement of al-Maliki. When they met in Jordan last November, the president called al-Maliki "the right guy for Iraq." Now, he continually prods al-Maliki to do more to forge political reconciliation before the temporary military buildup ends.

"I think there's a certain level of frustration with the leadership in general, inability to work _ come together to get, for example, an oil revenue law passed or provincial elections," Bush said.

While the Iraqi parliament has recessed for the month of August, the president said lawmakers already had passed 60 pieces of legislation and have a budget process that distributes money from the central government to provinces.

He stressed U.S. commitment in Iraq, yet laid the political problems at Baghdad's doorstep.

"The fundamental question is, Will the government respond to the demands of the people? And, if the government doesn't demand _ or respond to the demands of the people, they will replace the government. That's up to the Iraqis to make that decision, not American politicians."

The Kansas City speech was a change in George Jr's rhetoric. Previously, he complained that Iraq had not even passed legislation to share oil wealth with the provinces. That the government had met almost none of the objectives demanded by the American government. Suddenly George Jr is claiming that the oil wealth is being shared despite no legislation. That they have made all these accomplishments. Whereas George Jr seriously tempered his support for Maliki while in Canada, the speech next day in Kansas City included an endorsement of Maliki.

Why the conflicting message? Implied is infighting or indecision within a White House that is usually careful to restrict all access to thoughts inside that administration. When asked about what appeared to be diminished support for Maliki (from that article), "National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe told reporters that Bush continued to have confidence in the prime minister and that his level of support had not changed."

The fact that George Jr is now trying to compare Iraq to Vietnam is, well, how many here so often denied that relationship: Deja vue Nam. Both wars were created by lies, fought without a strategic objective, and had no exit strategy defined by that strategic objective.

Just another example of seeing the school bus OR worrying about all school buses (which was the point in that post). Whereas Yesman065 sees accomplishment in skirmishes, the strategic objective is clearly not being achieved as more participation in the Maliki government is withdrawing, as the conflict moves into new provinces, and as refugees are now leaving the country in same numbers - something estimated to exceed 50,000 every month - not including an increasing number of refugees in other parts of Iraq.

Reporters note the surprise, contradiction, and political dangers of comparing an American defeat in Vietnam with Iraq.

Have you answered the questions
put to YOU?
Unlike an ASSHOLE
who only claims, TW, to have not insulted, yet when shown he has, still ignores the reality of that which has been proven repeatedly.

Urbane Guerrilla;377220 wrote:

That's why I haven't voted for a Democratic candidate since sometime-I-can't-remember in the last century: no visible interest in the Republic's interest, which is a hell of a goddam note during a shooting war.

This is a really weird thing for a supporter of Caesar to say. Yes, the Democrats lied about pulling us out of this nightmare, but to imply that Caesar supports the Republic is just nuts.

"It is perfectly right to compare Iraq with Vietnam," said Barry Romo of Vietnam Veterans Against the War. "We got into Vietnam with a lie about the Gulf of Tonkin incident and we got into Iraq with a lie about WMD."

Ugh, this is why I hate both sides.

"It is perfectly right to treat Timothy McVeigh with Martin Luther King" said piercehawkeye45 of the cellar. "They both have been to jail."

piercehawkeye45;377555 wrote:

"It is perfectly right to treat Timothy McVeigh with Martin Luther King" said piercehawkeye45 of the cellar. "They both have been to jail."

Both did not go to jail due to a heinous crime. To go to war, the 'crime' must be so heinous as to justify war. Whereas WWII, Korea, Afghanistan, and Desert Storm did qualify as heinous, neither Nam nor "Mission Accomplished" did. Whereas WWII, et al created war without lies, both Nam and "Mission Accomplished" were both justified by outright and contemptuous lies.

As even noted by Sze Tsu 500 years before Christ, war first must be justified by something so contemptuous - the smoking gun. Going to jail means nothing without including underlying reasons why. Going to war must be justified by the same underlying facts – the reasons ‘whys’. Niether Nam nor “Mission Accomplished” comes even close to being justified by a smoking gun. The first reason why those wars could not be won is found in no smoking gun.

The first reasons why King was not sentenced to death is also found in the same reasons why he was jailed. There was no heinous crime. There was not even a felony.

Yes, but to pull out because of that reason alone is very foolish. Yet, I guess it is where your priorities lie.

Yon, on Anbar, talks perspectives.

For a time, Fallujah garnered nearly 100% of the media battle-stage. A speck of a city in a dysfunctional country standing toe-to-toe with a Super Power whose guns were hot and loaded. In the eyes of many, Fallujah was the frog strangling the stork, the defiant mouse giving the finger to the eagle, or more nobly, the Tankman of Tiananmen Square. The fact that Fallujah’s “defiance,” like the attacks on 9/11, was delivered in the form of celebratory murder was carefully omitted from the publicity campaign. (Hollywood press agents have nothing on al Qaeda’s media squad.)
~snip~
Many Vietnam veterans fear that our leaders never learned the lessons they paid dearly for. And mostly they are right. However, some of our officers—like James Mattis and David Petraeus—have studied the lessons of Vietnam in great detail. But for a long time, although these two officers realized we were in the middle of an insurgency, it was tantamount to “un-American” to call insurgents insurgents. They were “dead-enders,” and since there was no insurgency, there was scant need for counterinsurgency warfare. Had these two officers been running this war from the beginning, it probably would be finished by now.

It took enormous guts to take the job at this stage of the war, when it’s like an airplane with one of the wings blown off, and there is this pilot in the back of the airplane who easily could have parachuted out the back—where some of the others already have gone—but instead he says, “I can still fly this thing!” Had David Petraeus jumped and landed safely, he’d still have been one of the few who could land with a sterling reputation after his previous commands here. If this jet crashes while Petraeus is flying it, we will always know that the best of the best did not jump out the back; he ran to the cockpit.

Despite that Petraeus has the cockpit as under control as it can be, the jet is still nosing down. The only way this is going to work is if the majority of the subordinate commanders, and our troops, are applying the difficult lessons of counterinsurgency. Lessons that we failed to apply for most of the first few years of this war. Lessons our Vietnam veterans paid for in full. Lessons lost on others from wars here long ago and seldom mentioned these days. Lessons whispered by the Ghosts of Anbar.(The ghosts of Anbar he's refering to are pictures of Aussie and Brit grave markers from WW I & WW II era)

~snip~

The sheiks of Anbar turned against al Qaeda because the sheiks are businessmen, and al Qaeda is bad for business. But they didn’t suddenly trust Americans just because they no longer trusted al Qaeda. They are not suddenly blood allies. This is business, and that’s fine, because if there is one thing America is good at, it’s business.

But in Anbar a perspective less lofty but infinitely more practical has evolved which acknowledges that, first and foremost, peace is better for business and self-interest is a more reliable motive for cooperation than is self-sacrifice.

Winning the hearts and minds of businessmen with greed, is probably a better bet than preaching democracy.

More realistic eitherway.

piercehawkeye45;377235 wrote:

Well I guess that is logical.

I seek to understand and adopt the Republic's interest, so only in that sense is it "my" interest. It's in the Republic's interest to win her wars, especially with Gap-nation nondemocracies (an essential reason they are in the listing of Barnettian Gap nations), and particularly in the interest of spreading any possible shades of democracy throughout the globe. Instantaneous conversion from bad government to good government isn't at all likely, so opening wedges and the salami method must be employed, and planned for.

This is a really weird thing for a supporter of Caesar to say. Yes, the Democrats lied about pulling us out of this nightmare, but to imply that Caesar supports the Republic is just nuts.

Calling GWB a Caesar does violence to an accurate understanding of both, Griff. Kindly do not indulge in unbalanced partisan hysterics if you want me to take you seriously as a thinker. He thinks more as a libertarian than you're willing to give him credit for, so remove the blinkers. I mean, visibly do so, don't just claim you did and continue as blindly as before: to endeavor by all means to shrink the world's trouble spots -- the countries and regions in the Gap -- is not unlibertarian at its root, however busy this may be in intervention in affairs outside our borders. Call it anti-isolationism if you like. You know I regard isolationism as a nonstarter and you know why I say so. The worldwide economic and cultural connectivity of globalism make this course of action inevitable and its advance inescapable. A question for this America, this quintessential global economic Core nation, is whether we ride this advance to greater success and general worldwide wealth creation, or whether we screw up and cede this position to somebody of greater ambition or hunger, in the New Core -- mostly Russia, China, and India.

Your mistake is in believing that militarism supports our being an economic core nation. One example is the erosion of our lock on international students in our university system. Students who come to America become business partners with Americans when they return to their home country. Our position in the world has deteriorated to the point that international students are looking elsewhere, because we now approach the world paradoxically, our minds are isolated but our weapons are everywhere.

we now approach the world paradoxically, our minds are isolated but our weapons are everywhere.

That is a great line.

xoxoxoBruce;377842 wrote:

It took enormous guts to take the job at this stage of the war, when it’s like an airplane with one of the wings blown off, and there is this pilot in the back of the airplane who easily could have parachuted out the back—where some of the others already have gone—but instead he says, “I can still fly this thing!” Had David Petraeus jumped and landed safely, he’d still have been one of the few who could land with a sterling reputation after his previous commands here.

Yon forgot one important fact. Had Petraeus not taken command, then his military career was done. IOW he repeatedly made the point. He cannot win this war. He can only achieve tactical victories and only in limited locations. Petraeus had a choice. End his carrer. Or declare up front that he could not win this war so that he only accomplished every limited objective.

Wars are not won on the battlefield as the 'big dic' types believe. Wars are settled politically. This war cannot be won when those who must do the poltiical settlement are not able or do not want to.

Petraeus said this up front before he took command. Those who see the bigger picture understood this. Those who see in terms of tactical objectives - the mistake of Nam - associate security around Baghdad as strategic victory. You can see here many who cannot see the bigger picture. They proclaim the surge is working when even everyone knows the strategic objective is being lost. Some here did not grasp what Petraeus was warning long ago. Iraq is slowly being lost as Petraeus cautioned. Sen Warner - a long time military man - accurate said the same thing. We are not winning - while achieving every tactical objective.

Petraeus had no choice. Take command or terminate his military carrer. That's how it works when one is a general. Yon forgot to mention that part.

Had David Petraeus jumped and landed safely, he’d still have been one of the few who could land with a sterling reputation after his previous commands here.

Not all returning Generals retire.