Majority Of Americans Still Support The Troops

[jochhejaam]

Think anyone in the WH gives a shit about what a majority of Americans want? Me either.

Proof that dannyboy's contention that Americans no longer support the troops is way off base.

POLL: AMERICANS 'WANT TO WIN IN IRAQ'...
In the wake of the U.S. House of Representatives passing a resolution that amounts to a vote of no confidence in the Bush administration's policies in Iraq, a new national survey by Alexandria, VA-based Public Opinion Strategies (POS) shows the American people may have some different ideas from their elected leaders on this issue.

POLL: AMERICANS 'WANT TO WIN IN IRAQ'
Tue Feb 20 2007 16:21:32 ET

In the wake of the U.S. House of Representatives passing a resolution that amounts to a vote of no confidence in the Bush administration's policies in Iraq, a new national survey by Alexandria, VA-based Public Opinion Strategies (POS) shows the American people may have some different ideas from their elected leaders on this issue.

The survey was conducted nationwide February 5-7 among a bi-partisan, cross-section of 800 registered voters. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent. The survey was commissioned by The Moriah Group, a Chattanooga-based strategic communications and public affairs firm.

The survey shows Americans want to win in Iraq, and that they understand Iraq is the central point in the war against terrorism and they can support a U.S. strategy aimed at achieving victory, said Neil Newhouse, a partner in POS. The idea of pulling back from Iraq is not where the majority of Americans are. <Hello?>
# By a 53 percent - 46 percent margin, respondents surveyed said that Democrats are going too far, too fast in pressing the President to withdraw troops from Iraq.

# By identical 57 percent - 41 percent margins, voters agreed with these statements: I support finishing the job in Iraq, that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security and the Iraqi war is a key part of the global war on terrorism.

# Also, by a 56 percent - 43 percent margin, voters agreed that even if they have concerns about his war policies, Americans should stand behind the President in Iraq because we are at war.

# While the survey shows voters believe (60 percent- 34 percent) that Iraq will never become a stable democracy, they still disagree that victory in Iraq (creating a young, but stable democracy and reducing the threat of terrorism at home) is no longer possible. Fifty-three percent say it's still possible, while 43 percent disagree.

# By a wide 74 percent - 25 percent margin, voters disagree with the notion that "I don't really care what happens in Iraq after the U.S. leaves, I just want the troops brought home."

When asked which statement best describes their position on the Iraq War, voters are evenly divided (50 percent - 49 percent) between positions of "doing whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to their country," and positions that call for immediate withdrawal or a strict timetable.

# 27 percent said "the Iraq war is the front line in the battle against terrorism and our troops should stay there and do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to their country."

# 23 percent said "while I don't agree that the U.S. should be in the war, our troops should stay there and do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to their country."

# 32 percent said "whether Iraq is stable or not, the U.S. should set and hold to a strict timetable for withdrawing troops."

# 17 percent said "the U.S. should immediately withdraw its troops from Iraq."

The survey also found that voters thought it would hurt American prestige more to pull out of Iraq immediately (59 percent) than it would to stay there for the long term (35 percent). Public Opinion Strategies "scored the best win-loss record among the major polling and media firms in the 2004 election" and was named Pollster of the Year in 2002.

http://digg.com/political_opinion/POLL_AMERICANS_WANT_TO_WIN_IN_IRAQ

Where, oh where, do you find a dearth of American support for out troops?

[101A]

How the hell do you guys think 'we' are going to win the war in Iraq - its Vietnam all over again, and thanks for getting us involved!

Nice cliche.

Now; please list the similarities with Vietnam.

[boutons_]

"similarities with Vietnam."

The US has lost the "hearts and minds" of the majority of Iraqis. (A majority of the Iraqis want the US out of Iraq)

Iraqis are cooperating, forced or willingly, with the insurgents.

The US troops can't tell who is an insurgent or who is an innocent Iraqi.

The US president and his party is extremely unpopular with the US people because of his extremely unpopular Iraqi war.

The troops are have begun to doubt
1) what they are fighting for and
2) the ability of the Iraqis to "stand up" so the US can stand down. (The damning difference here is the US military is now all voluntary, while much of the US grunts in VN were conscripted)

The US-supported government is extremely weak.

Nobody can see an end to the war.

The Exec is repeatedly lying about the the "enormous progress" in the war.

... all of the above are EXACTLY like the VN war.

[101A]

"similarities with Vietnam."

The US has lost the "hearts and minds" of the majority of Iraqis. (A majority of the Iraqis want the US out of Iraq)

Link please; 80% of Iraqis are glad we did it, and if it were to happen again, would choose our invasion over Saddam


Iraqis are cooperating, forced or willingly, with the insurgents.

How many? Seems to me the main issue is Iraq is Iraqis killing Iraqis - and isn't that EXACTLY what the documents uncovered in '04 said the insurgents were going to do to get us to leave - incite sectarian violence?


The US troops can't tell who is an insurgent or who is an innocent Iraqi.

Whereas in Vietnam, there was an opposing ARMY, who wore uniforms (from North Vietnam). It was not the Vietcong guerillas who eventually overran the South - it was a STANDING FREAKING ARMY!!! There is no such army in Iraq - there is NO WAY we can be defeated militarily in Iraq, or EVER face the kind of casualty numbers an actual army inflicted upon us in Vietnam.


The US president and his party is extremely unpopular with the US people because of his extremely unpopular Iraqi war.

Did you read the thread about the ACTUAL opinion polls regarding the Iraq war? A majority of Americans want us to stay until the job is finished, or as much as possible, and do NOT want a STRICT timetable for withdrawal.


The troops are have begun to doubt
1) what they are fighting for and
2) the ability of the Iraqis to "stand up" so the US can stand down. (The damning difference here is the US military is now all voluntary, while much of the US grunts in VN were conscripted)

You mean the dozen that were on 60 minutes? We have over a million in uniform; that's all 60 minutes could drudge up?

I guess you're right, though, because we had to institute a draft, and call up hundreds of thousands of 18-25 year olds to go fight and die for their country, most don't want to be there, haven't been thoroughly screened...oh, wait....

Never mind, you're right JUUUUUSSST like Vietnam.


The US-supported government is extremely weak.

Popularly elected US Supported government you mean?


Nobody can see an end to the war.

I haven't lived through any of the lengthy wars as a sentient being, but I'm wondering, was the end in sight from WWII in 1942?, '43? When is the end of a war visible, or apparent?


The Exec is repeatedly lying about the the "enormous progress" in the war.

We're giving worse than we're getting, and there is at this moment an elected president, vice president and parliament in place. Our opponent strikes ONLY through suicide attacks, and cannot hope to take ground that we occupy, unless we leave a spot; they are fighting a PR war, not a war of capture and hold - that cannot be argued. The main progress I see for the enemy in Iraq, be it Al Queda, The Sunni resistance, Iranian interests, or whomever, is the emboldened stance that the anti-war crowd has taken in THIS country post-election. That position, however, may have been overplayed, as recent polls suggest.


... all of the above are EXACTLY like the VN war.

[01Snake]

^^ Boutins Bitchslap

[boutons_]

Probably all of the oppressed majority Shiites were happy to see the remove the oppressing Saddam/Sunni minority. That was just after the invasion, which was accompanied by US promises of construction. Now, after 4+ years of slaughter, the Shiites think the US presence is worsening and prolonging the violence, while the water, sewage, and electricity all remain below pre-invasion levels. Violence and degraded unreliable infrastructure (aka broken US promises) have lost the hearts and minds of most Iraqis. Estimates are that 2 millions Iraqis have left the country, those Iraqis being the better educated, skilled Iraqis who could pay their way out of the country and who should be running the country and the infrastructure.

Sunni insurgents cause 10x more US casualties than Shiite insurgents. The US doesn't have the hearts and minds of the 6M Sunnis, who fear they will be oppressed by the Shiites, sooner or later.

The NVA always wore uniforms, never "camouflaged" themselves in civilian clothes? And the VN irregulars, including women and children, were also a serious force fighting the US.

The US-supported IRAQI "government" is such in name only, extremely weak, corrupt, and compromised by Sunni/Shiite sectarianism, with the Iraqi army and police infiltrated by insurgents.

Do you think the military who are this week formally coming out against the war are the only military against the Iraq war? My bet it is they are the tip of the iceberg speaking for 1000s more military who are against, or at very best indifferent, to the war but are afraid to speak up formally.

We are talking about insurgent wars in Iraq and VN, not WWII when ground was held or lost by armies. The US was in the WWII fighting for less that 4 years, with the Normandy invasion signalling a huge turn in the tide against the Germans. Fighting was over 3 months later. 10+ years in VN and 5+ years in Iraq, nobody saw/sees the end of the fighting. In fact, the risk in Iraq is a increase and spread of the conflict as neighboring countries get sucked in.

The similarities between VN and Iraq are overwhelm any differences.

The Iraq war is over, the Repugs accomplished nothing positive (other than getting dubya re-elected), and very much negative, the negative consequences of which will far outlast the US presence.

[101A]

Probably all of the oppressed majority Shiites were happy to see the remove the oppressing Saddam/Sunni minority. That was just after the invasion, which was accompanied by US promises of construction. Now, after 4+ years of slaughter, the Shiites think the US presence is worsening and prolonging the violence, while the water, sewage, and electricity all remain below pre-invasion levels. Violence and degraded unreliable infrastructure (aka broken US promises) have lost the hearts and minds of most Iraqis. Estimates are that 2 millions Iraqis have left the country, those Iraqis being the better educated, skilled Iraqis who could pay their way out of the country and who should be running the country and the infrastructure.

Sunni insurgents cause 10x more US casualties than Shiite insurgents. The US doesn't have the hearts and minds of the 6M Sunnis, who fear they will be oppressed by the Shiites, sooner or later.

The NVA always wore uniforms, never "camouflaged" themselves in civilian clothes? And the VN irregulars, including women and children, were also a serious force fighting the US.

The US-supported IRAQI "government" is such in name only, extremely weak, corrupt, and compromised by Sunni/Shiite sectarianism, with the Iraqi army and police infiltrated by insurgents.

Do you think the military who are this week formally coming out against the war are the only military against the Iraq war? My bet it is they are the tip of the iceberg speaking for 1000s more military who are against, or at very best indifferent, to the war but are afraid to speak up formally.

We are talking about insurgent wars in Iraq and VN, not WWII when ground was held or lost by armies. The US was in the WWII fighting for less that 4 years, with the Normandy invasion signalling a huge turn in the tide against the Germans. Fighting was over 3 months later. 10+ years in VN and 5+ years in Iraq, nobody saw/sees the end of the fighting. In fact, the risk in Iraq is a increase and spread of the conflict as neighboring countries get sucked in.

The similarities between VN and Iraq are overwhelm any differences.

The Iraq war is over, the Repugs accomplished nothing positive (other than getting dubya re-elected), and very much negative, the negative consequences of which will far outlast the US presence.


The "insurgent" war of Vietnam is historical revisionism & B.S. The Guerillas were a headache for our troops, the South was taken by the North's ARMY!

Vietcong vs. NVA

There is no equivalent to the NVA, at all, in Iraq.

ALL VOLUNTEER ARMY -- NO DRAFT!!!!!!

6% of the US military deaths.

3 Months from Normandy???

Speak out your ass much?

Normandy = 6/6/1944

VE Day = 5/8/1945

And, no shit the end was in sight after D-Day (a day we lost 3X the troops we've lost during the ENTIRE Iraq war, btw) - but that was only 11 months out. That's why I mentioned '42 or '43; was the end in clear sight just 2 or 3 years removed? Hell no. That's why you're saying "no end ever in sight" in Iraq rings hollow. If we KNEW the Iraq war would be over, with the US victorious, and the government stable w/in 2-3 years as long as we stayed, I guarantee a LARGE percentage of this population, even larger than already believes, would want to stick it out. Point is, we can't tell when the insurgents will get tired and go away.

As long as they have so many willing accomplices here, I can't imagine they will.

[boutons_]

oops, 44 - 45, 12 months off. But normandy was still a turning point in the war, indicating the end of the war was approaching, combined with Russia coming in from the East.

After 4 years, the US mlitary hasn't even stabilized and controlled just Bagdad, never mind the entire country. The US military might stabilize Bagdad, but it will not be VBD, Victory Bagdad Day, since the insurgents will be lying low or "run away to fight another day" or in another area where the US military isn't "surging". There aren't enough US troops in Iraq to win AND HOLD everywhere simultaneously, and, just like in VN, the weak Iraqi govt/army/police cannot take over.

"willing accomplices"? GFY. The Iraq war was started and lost exclusively by the Repugs/Exec, who are totally ignoring the will of the US people, officially tabulated in November election, to stop the Iraq war.

[ChumpDumper]

While the survey shows voters believe (60 percent- 34 percent) that Iraq will never become a stable democracy, they still disagree that victory in Iraq (creating a young, but stable democracy and reducing the threat of terrorism at home) is no longer possible. Fifty-three percent say it's still possible, while 43 percent disagree.See anything weird about this?

[Nbadan]

See anything weird about this?

The whole poll is riddled with vague-ness to confuse the pollees . How can 53% believe that a Iraqi democracy is possible, but 60% believe that it will never become a stable democracy?

Also, there are serious questions about the source of this poll.

New poll: Americans want to WIN in Iraq, not withdraw
Jump to Comments


The majority of the American people want to WIN the war in Iraq, according to a new poll from the Moriah Group and Public Opinion Strategies. By a 53-to-46 percent margin, “respondents surveyed said that Democrats are going too far, too fast in pressing the President to withdraw troops from Iraq.”

iraqflagI agree with this assessment, but something smelly fishy…

The Drudge Report flashed this poll as breaking news Wednesday night, but at 9:30 p.m. EST, Drudge has pulled it down off the front page. Is there an issue with the source of this poll? Probably will find out more tomorrow.

Link (http://harddrivelife.com/2007/02/20/new-poll-americans-want-to-win-in-iraq-not-withdraw/)

If it's not even credible enough for Drudge, who will post just about anything if it helps the GOP, then why should it be credible here?

[xrayzebra]

Well, your dimm-o-crap leaders certainly believe in the poll numbers
and don't see anything weird.

Democrats back away from Iraq plan

By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, Associated Press WriterMon Feb 26, 10:24 PM ET

Democratic leaders backed away from aggressive plans to limit President Bush's war authority, the latest sign of divisions within their ranks over how to proceed.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record), D-Nev., said Monday he wanted to delay votes on a measure that would repeal the 2002 war authorization and narrow the mission in Iraq.

Senior Democrats who drafted the proposal, including Sens. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record) of Delaware and Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record) of Michigan, had sought swift action on it as early as this week, when the Senate takes up a measure to enact the recommendations of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission.

Reid, who will huddle with Democrats Tuesday to discuss whether to postpone the Iraq debate, cited pressure from victims' families for quick action on the Sept. 11 bill as the reason for doing so.
I'm Sure that must be the reason. Poll numbers wouldn't matter, would they?

"Iraq is going to be there — it's just a question of when we get back to it," Reid said, predicting it would be "days, not weeks" before the Senate returned to the issue. The war reauthorization legislation also appears to lack the 60 votes it would need to pass the Senate.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., meanwhile, said she doesn't support tying war funding to strict training and readiness targets for U.S. troops.

The comments distanced her from Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., who has said he wants to use Congress' spending power to force a change in policy in Iraq, by setting strict conditions on war funding.

Pelosi said she supports holding the administration to training and readiness targets, but added: "I don't see them as conditions to our funding. Let me be very clear: Congress will fund our troops."

Asked whether the standards should be tied to a $100 billion supplemental war spending measure — as Murtha has proposed — Pelosi demurred, saying it was up to the panel that drafts funding bills.

The developments on both sides of the Capitol reflected a new level of disarray in Democratic ranks on Iraq. Swept into power by voters clamoring for an end to the war, Democrats have seen their efforts falter under a reality more complicated than they found on the campaign trail.

While the public is fed up with Iraq, there is little consensus over what to do.

Internal divisions, Republican opposition and a president who — while weakened — still appears to have the dominant voice on the war have all left Democrats flailing for a way to change the war's course.

The Democrats' symbolic measure disapproving of Bush's troop buildup passed the House only to stall in the Senate. The House plan to place strict restrictions on war funding appears to lack enough support within Democratic ranks to succeed, and looks likely to be scaled back, considering Pelosi's latest comments. The Senate bid to narrow the 2002 resolution authorizing the war appears to lack enough votes to be approved, and action on it now is likely to be put off — at least for the week.

The first signs of impatience among Democrats' allies are sprouting.

"The public is saying, 'We hired you to get out of Iraq — now figure it out,'" said Tom Matzzie, Washington director of the anti-war group MoveOn.org. "There is a risk that without action, frustration boils over into anger."

Democrats argue that their failed efforts to thwart Bush's war plans will ultimately pay off by ratcheting up pressure for a change.

"The administration is increasingly isolated and they are increasingly at odds with where the American people are," said Jim Manley, a Reid spokesman. "We're going to keep on going at it until the administration changes course."

But Democrats also are worried about being at odds with public opinion as House and Senate leaders push divergent measures.

House Democrats, who enjoy a 32-seat majority, will try this week to determine if there is enough support among themselves to pass the Murtha plan. Senate Democrats will discuss whether to postpone action on the war reauthorization, as Reid suggested.

Bush told governors Monday that he looked forward to a "healthy debate" on Iraq, but warned Congress against limiting funding for the war or commanders' flexibility in waging it.

"I do not believe that someone is unpatriotic if they don't agree with my point of view. On the other hand, I think it's important for people to understand the consequences of not giving our troops the resources necessary to do the job," Bush said.

Democrats' troubles finding a strategy on the war reflect a wider lack of consensus among the public about what course to take in Iraq. AP-Ipsos polls show that while a clear majority are pessimistic about the war and oppose a buildup, most people do not support cutting funding for the troops.

Zbigniew Brzesinski, Jimmy Carter's former national security adviser, said Democrats "run the risk of losing momentum."

They would be better off pushing some simple policy statements that could garner Republican support — such as opposition to establishing permanent bases in Iraq or to further expansion of the war — than trying to find a way to tie Bush's hands, he said.

"One has to be very careful not to get involved in micromanaging a military engagement," Brzesinski added.

Bush still enjoys substantial advantage when it comes to trumpeting his message on the war, even though his image and clout suffered major blows in last fall's elections.

Democrats, by contrast, have a cacophony of voices — including several presidential candidates — weighing in on what to do next in Iraq.

"The party's not unified. Until you control the executive branch, you really don't have a party — you have all these independent actors," Lawrence Korb, a Reagan administration Defense Department official, said of the Democrats' plight.

Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or CommentsI'm Sure that must be the reason. Poll numbers wouldn't matter, would they?

[boutons_]

Fuck it, EVERYBODY wants to "win" in Iraq, but if winning is a friendly, independent, Iraqi democracy, that's obviously not winnable. The culture and society and institutions are inexistant, not capable of sustaining a democracy. And 100's of 1000s of educated, skilled Iraqis needed to make the country stable have fled.

So if democracy is not achievable, what is the US doing there?

All dubya and dickhead are doing is prolonging their fiasco and for the probable hell and anti-democratic Islamization of Iraq that will follow US withdrawal, which will be much worse for the US and M/E than Saddam in Feb 2003. The Exec knows Iraq is dead in the water, and they are jockeying for time until Jan 2009, and trying to figure out how later to pin THEIR total failure on somebody else.

[jochhejaam]

The whole poll is riddled with vague-ness to confuse the pollees . How can 53% believe that a Iraqi democracy is possible, but 60% believe that it will never become a stable democracy?

Is it possible that a Democracy can be unstable?

de·moc·ra·cy
[/SIZE]1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
^^^Nope, nothing in there implies that a democracy will be stable.


Okay, that vaguary's cleared up, but you stated that the poll is "riddled with vague-ness", riddled implies lots of vaguaries so by all means continue to list the vaguaries so they may be addressed.

[ChumpDumper]

Is it possible that a Democracy can be unstable?Read it again.
While the survey shows voters believe (60 percent- 34 percent) that Iraq will never become a stable democracy, they still disagree that victory in Iraq (creating a young, but stable democracy and reducing the threat of terrorism at home) is no longer possible. Fifty-three percent say it's still possible, while 43 percent disagree.
:wtf

Throwing in the double negative doesn't help that blogger's case at all.

[jochhejaam]

Read it again.
:wtf

Throwing in the double negative doesn't help that blogger's case at all.
Sure, but I wasn't addressing the "random blogger's" post :nope , I was addressing Nbadan's post.

Read it again.

[ChumpDumper]

So my point is gold :elephant

[jochhejaam]

So my point is gold :elephant
The point's okay.

[Gerryatrics]

See anything weird about this?

While the survey shows voters believe (60 percent- 34 percent) that Iraq will never become a stable democracy, they still disagree that victory in Iraq (creating a young, but stable democracy and reducing the threat of terrorism at home) is no longer possible. Fifty-three percent say it's still possible, while 43 percent disagree.

http://www.hop.com

[Guru of Nothing]

Now; please list the similarities with Vietnam.

Urban white guys still refuse to defend their country.

[Nbadan]

Not to mention..

Guerilla warfare
Fighting secretly spreading to neighboring countries
An administration that refuses to acknowledge the desperateness of the situation
The surge (didn't work in Vietnam either)
Private armies and the Phoenix project
Oil (there was oil off the Vietnam cost ((surprise, surprise)))
Losing wide-spread public sympathy in Iraq and America for the war


I could go on and on....

[Duff McCartney]

Link please; 80% of Iraqis are glad we did it, and if it were to happen again, would choose our invasion over Saddam


Link please?


Popularly elected US Supported government you mean?

Don't worry...if history tells us anything, in twenty years...that U.S. supported government will become corrupt and attack its own citizens, thereby further driving deeper divisions between our foreign policy and the countries we try to control with it.

[clambake]

Much has been made of Saddam attacking his own people and Iranians. Saddam was an American made product. The song remains the same.

[101A]

Link please?

80% is the number of Kurds + Shia; they are happy with the power they have, or can share, now. Don't have a link, I saw a reporter who just returned from Iraq on Charlie Rose a couple of days ago. She put the number out there, I was surprised by it, frankly. I'll try to find her name and corroborate.




Don't worry...if history tells us anything, in twenty years...that U[.S. supported government will become corrupt and attack its own citizens, thereby further driving deeper divisions between our foreign policy and the countries we try to control with it.

The debate was not about the potential future viability of the govt. of Iraq; it was about the similarities between this war, and the Vietnam war. I still content the similarities are more in the minds of anti-war activists than anywhere else. The BIGGEST, glaring, elephant in the living room difference, is the lack of a draft - as well as the number of body bags. Not to mention there is no actual country, nation, etc. at war with us in Iraq (minor detail to many, I guess).

[Nbadan]

When Johnny Comes Marching Home Again (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slt0Iq72MY8)

[101A]

^^^
Hippies see the similarities?

Who would have guessed.

Hippies see LOTS of things that aren't there.

[Nbadan]

We Will Not Be Silenced (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWPNF5KfAtY)

[exstatic]

Hippies see LOTS of things that aren't there.
Like WMDs?

[DarkReign]

Like WMDs?

:lmao

[boutons_]

Even the top US brass is comparing the failure and loss of Iraq to the failure and loss of VN:

US Commanders Admit: We Face a Vietnam-Style Collapse

By Simon Tisdall
Guardian Unlimited UK

Thursday 01 March 2007

Elite officers in Iraq fear low morale, lack of troops and loss of political will.

An elite team of officers advising the US commander, General David Petraeus, in Baghdad has concluded that they have six months to win the war in Iraq - or face a Vietnam-style collapse in political and public support that could force the military into a hasty retreat.

The officers - combat veterans who are experts in counter-insurgency - are charged with implementing the "new way forward" strategy announced by George Bush on January 10. The plan includes a controversial "surge" of 21,500 additional American troops to establish security in the Iraqi capital and Anbar province.

But the team, known as the "Baghdad brains trust" and ensconced in the heavily fortified Green Zone, is struggling to overcome a range of entrenched problems in what has become a race against time, according to a former senior administration official familiar with their deliberations.

"They know they are operating under a clock. They know they are going to hear a lot more talk in Washington about 'Plan B' by the autumn - meaning withdrawal. They know the next six-month period is their opportunity. And they say it's getting harder every day," he said.

By improving security, the plan's short-term aim is to create time and space for the Iraqi government to bring rival Shia, Sunni and Kurd factions together in a process of national reconciliation, American officials say. If that works within the stipulated timeframe, longer term schemes for rebuilding Iraq under the so-called "go long" strategy will be set in motion.

But the next six months are make-or-break for the US military and the Iraqi government. The main obstacles confronting Gen Petraeus's team are:

* Insufficient troops on the ground

* A "disintegrating" international coalition

* An anticipated increase in violence in the south as the British leave

* Morale problems as casualties rise

* A failure of political will in Washington and/or Baghdad.

"The scene is very tense," the former official said. "They are working round the clock. Endless cups of tea with the Iraqis. But they're still trying to figure out what's the plan. The president is expecting progress. But they're thinking, what does he mean? The plan is changing every minute, as all plans do."

( the "president" will later blame his military for failing in and losing Iraq, while dubya and dickhead will be spun as victims of an incompetent military. dubya, dickhead, PNAC, AEI, neo-cunts will NEVER accept responsibility and blame for losing Iraq to Islamicists and terrorists. )

The team is an unusual mix of combat experience and academic achievement. It includes Colonel Peter Mansoor, a former armoured division commander with a PhD in the history of infantry; Colonel HR McMaster, author of a well-known critique of Vietnam and a seasoned counter-insurgency operations chief; Lt-Col David Kilcullen, a seconded Australian officer and expert on Islamism; and Colonel Michael Meese, son of the former US attorney-general Edwin Meese, who was a member of the ill-fated Iraq Study Group.

Their biggest headache was insufficient troops on the ground despite the increase ordered by President Bush, the former official said. "We don't have the numbers for the counter-insurgency job even with the surge. The word 'surge' is a misnomer. Strategically, tactically, it's not a surge," an American officer said.

According to the US military's revised counter-insurgency field manual, FM 3-24, written by Gen Petraeus, the optimum "troop-to-task" ratio for Baghdad requires 120,000 US and allied troops in the city alone. Current totals, even including often unreliable Iraqi units, fall short and the deficit is even greater in conflict areas outside Baghdad.

"Additional troops are essential if we are to win," said Lt-Col John Nagel, co-author of the manual, in an address at the US Naval Institute in San Diego last month. One soldier for every 50 civilians in the most intense conflict areas was key to successful counter-insurgency work.Compounding the manpower problems is an apparently insurmountable shortage of civilian volunteers from the Pentagon, state department and treasury. They are needed to staff the additional provincial reconstruction teams and other aid projects promised by Mr Bush.

( so big, badass 300M America is too small to takeover an unwilling country of 20M? just like VN )

The cut in British troops in southern Iraq, coupled with the actual or anticipated departure of other allies, has heightened the Petraeus team's worries that the international coalition is "disintegrating" even as the US strives to regain the initiative in Iraq, the former official said.

Increased violence in the south is expected, caused in part by the "displacement" of Shia militias forced out of Baghdad by the US crackdown. American and Iraq forces entered the militant Shia stronghold of Sadr City on Tuesday for the first time since the surge began. No other major operation has yet been attempted there but "we or the Iraqis are going to have to fight them", one US officer said.

According to a British source, plans are in hand for the possible southwards deployment of 6,000 US troops to compensate for Britain's phased withdrawal and any upsurge in unrest.

Morale is another concern in the Green Zone headquarters: American forces are preparing for a rise in casualties as the crackdown gathers pace. In a message to the troops after he assumed overall command last month, Gen Petraeus praised their sacrifices while warning of more "difficult times" to come.

"We serve in Iraq at a critical time ... A decisive moment approaches. Shoulder to shoulder with our Iraqi comrades we will conduct a pivotal campaign to improve security for the Iraqi people. The stakes could not be higher," Gen Petraeus said.

"It's amazing how well morale has held up so far," the former official said. "But the guys know what's being said back home. There is no question morale is gradually being sapped by political debates."

( ... trying to blame militarymorale on polls and politics back in USA? yeah, sure. The military can see every day, month after month, that the situation is not improving, the nebulous, moving-goal-post "objective" is receding farther into the distance, multiple tours of extended duty, not enough recruits, scraping the barrel by lowering standars to enlist ex-cons, etc, etc )

The advisers are also said to be struggling to prevent the "politicisation" of the surge by the Shia-dominated government. The fear is that any security advances may be exploited to further weaken the position of Baghdad's Sunni minority.

Despite progress this week on a new law sharing Iraq's oil wealth, the Petraeus team believes the government is failing to work hard enough to meet other national reconciliation "benchmarks" set by Mr Bush.Yet it is accepted that the US is asking the prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, to do what most politicians in normal circumstances would refuse to contemplate. "What we're doing is asking Maliki to confront his own powerbase," one officer said.

Possibly the biggest longer term concern of Gen Petraeus's team is that political will in Washington may collapse just as the military is on the point of making a counter-insurgency breakthrough. According to a senior administration official, speaking this week, this is precisely what happened in the final year of the Vietnam war. Steven Simon, the national security council's senior director for transnational threats during the Clinton administration, said a final meltdown in political and public backing was likely if the new strategy was not seen to be working quickly.

"The implosion of domestic support for the war will compel the disengagement of US forces. It is now just a matter of time," Mr Simon said in a paper written for the Council on Foreign Relations. "Better to withdraw as a coherent and at least somewhat volitional act than withdraw later in hectic response to public opposition... or to a series of unexpectedly sharp reverses on the ground," he said.

( Had dubya actually had ANY plans beyond "shock and awe prime-time TV", they would have included worst case scenarios like insurgency and the limits of US popular support

"If it gets really tough in the next few months, it will throw fuel on the fire in Washington," the former official said. "Congress will be emboldened in direct proportion to the trouble in Iraq." If the policy was not judged to be working by Labor Day (the first Monday in September which marks the start of the new political year), Mr Bush could lose control of the policy to Congress and be forced to begin a phased pull-out, he suggested.

A senior Pentagon official said this week that it was too early to gauge the strategy's chances of success - but preliminary reports were encouraging. "There are some promising signs. There is a new overall Iraqi commander in Baghdad. A number of joint operations have just begun. The number of political murders has fallen. Iraqi forces are showing up as promised, admittedly a little bit under strength, and are taking up some of the responsibilities that Maliki said he would,"he said. "We have to be realistic. We're not going to stop the suicide bombers and the roadside explosive devices for some time. And the military alone are certainly not going to solve the problem. Maliki has to meet the benchmarks. A civilian surge is needed, too. The Iraqis have to do it themselves."

US officials say they also have rising hopes of a breakthrough in Sunni-dominated Anbar province where tribal chiefs are increasingly hostile to al-Qaida and foreign fighters - and are looking to build bridges with moderate Shias.

But this week's US decision to join talks on Iraq with Iran and Syria, after previously refusing to do so, is nevertheless seen as an indication of the administration's growing alarm at the possibility of a historic strategic failure.

============

The US talking to Iran and Syria is one of the best items I've heard in months. Indicates weaknesss of the US Exec which knows Iraq is lost militarily, and diplomacy is required to try to soften the loss.

you're doing a heckuva job, dubya