60 Days Will Not Change Iraq War....

[Nbadan]

...time is ticking for 08 Congressional Republicans...support the Prez, save my ass..support the Prez...save my ass...

Support for Initial Invasion Has Risen, Poll Shows
By MEGAN THEE


Americans’ support for the initial invasion of Iraq has risen somewhat as the White House has continued to ask the public to reserve judgment about the war until at least the fall. In a New York Times/CBS News poll conducted over the weekend, 42 percent of Americans said that looking back, taking military action in Iraq was the right thing to do, while 51 percent said the United States should have stayed out of Iraq.

But two-thirds of those polled said the United States should reduce its forces in Iraq, or remove them altogether. Support for the invasion had been at an all-time low in May, when only 35 percent of Americans said the invasion of Iraq was the right thing and 61 percent said the United States should have stayed out. The latest poll made clear that a two-thirds majority of Americans continue to say the war is going badly.

However, the number of people who say the war is going “very badly” has fallen from 45 percent earlier in July to a current reading of 35 percent, and of those who say it is going well, 29 percent now describe it as “somewhat well” compared with 23 percent just last week.

Many of those who said the invasion was correct made it clear, however, that they are no longer convinced the United States should remain there.

NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/us/24poll.html?th&emc=th)

The administration, as well as it's media talking heads, have been on a full-time Iraq-war PR swing lately to paint the war in broad strokes as relating it too the events of Sept 11th...as Dubya did again today (http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=politics&id=5506126)..of course, they must have been doozing off during the Iraq Study Group (Hamilton) report that documents that Saddam/Iraq didn't have anything to do with Sept 11th..and that the war in Iraq is a sectarian civil war...and that if the U.S. left Iraq today, the ruling Shiite and it's Iranian-backers democracy put into power would be forced to reconcile with the Sunni and Kurds minorities or face it's own demons at home....

[Oh, Gee!!]

You know, I'm beginning to care less and less about the war. I'm pretty much resigned to the fact that we'll be there for the next 10 years.

[Yonivore]

Who says 60 days won't change a war?

Name one war in which the ultimate outcome was assured 60 days prior to the end of the war.

Most wars end on a decisive battle or event. I suspect the war in Iraq will be no different. Insurgent groups are more and more abandoning their ties with al Qaeda and turning on them. There appears to be dissention in the ranks of al Qaeda in Pakistan.

Who knows, it could be over tomorrow.

[boutons_]

What has to change is the Iraqi politics, and since Iraqi parliament will be on vacation for half those 60 days .... (most of them will probably be safely vacationing outside of Iraq).

===========

July 24, 2007

U.S. Is Seen in Iraq Until at Least ’09

By MICHAEL R. GORDON

BAGHDAD, July 23 — While Washington is mired in political debate over the future of Iraq, the American command here has prepared a detailed plan that foresees a significant American role for the next two years.

The classified plan, which represents the coordinated strategy of the top American commander and the American ambassador, calls for restoring security in local areas, including Baghdad, by the summer of 2008. “Sustainable security” is to be established on a nationwide basis by the summer of 2009, according to American officials familiar with the document.

The detailed document, known as the Joint Campaign Plan, is an elaboration of the new strategy President Bush signaled in January when he decided to send five additional American combat brigades and other units to Iraq. That signaled a shift from the previous strategy, which emphasized transferring to Iraqis the responsibility for safeguarding their security.

That new approach put a premium on protecting the Iraqi population in Baghdad, on the theory that improved security would provide Iraqi political leaders with the breathing space they needed to try political reconciliation.

( ... take month long summer holiday while their "country" goes up in flames )

The latest plan, which covers a two-year period, does not explicitly address troop levels or withdrawal schedules. It anticipates a decline in American forces as the “surge” in troops runs its course later this year or in early 2008. But it nonetheless assumes continued American involvement to train soldiers, act as partners with Iraqi forces and fight terrorist groups in Iraq, American officials said.

The goals in the document appear ambitious, given the immensity of the challenge of dealing with die-hard Sunni insurgents, renegade Shiite militias, Iraqi leaders who have made only fitful progress toward political reconciliation, as well as Iranian and Syrian neighbors who have not hesitated to interfere in Iraq’s affairs. And the White House’s interim assessment of progress, issued on July 12, is mixed.

But at a time when critics at home are defining patience in terms of weeks, the strategy may run into the expectations of many lawmakers for an early end to the American mission here.

The plan, developed by Gen. David H. Petraeus, the senior American commander, and Ryan C. Crocker, the American ambassador, has been briefed to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. William J. Fallon, the head of the Central Command. It is expected to be formally issued to officials here this week.

The plan envisions two phases.


The “near-term” goal is to achieve “localized security” in Baghdad and other areas no later than June 2008. It envisions encouraging political accommodations at the local level, including with former insurgents, while pressing Iraq’s leaders to make headway on their program of national reconciliation.

The “intermediate” goal is to stitch together such local arrangements to establish a broader sense of security on a nationwide basis no later than June 2009.

“The coalition, in partnership with the government of Iraq, employs integrated political, security, economic and diplomatic means, to help the people of Iraq achieve sustainable security by the summer of 2009,” a summary of the campaign plan states.

Military officials here have been careful not to guarantee success ( NO SH!T! http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif but dubya will! http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif), and recognized they may need to revise the plan if some assumptions were not met.

“The idea behind the surge was to bring stability and security to the Iraqi people, primarily in Baghdad because it is the political heart of the country, and by so doing give the Iraqis the time and space needed to come to grips with the tough issues they face and enable reconciliation to take place,” said Col. Peter Mansoor, the executive officer to General Petraeus.

“If eventually the Iraqi government and the various sects and groups do not come to some sort of agreement on how to share power, on how to divide resources and on how to reconcile and stop the violence, then the assumption on which the surge strategy was based is invalid, and we would have to re-look the strategy,” Colonel Mansoor added.

( Col Mansoor, the American people have already "re-looked" the strategy going back to Mar 03, and it's been sucking camel balls )

General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will provide an assessment in September on trends in Iraq and whether the strategy is viable or needs to be changed.

The previous plan, developed by Gen. George W. Casey Jr., who served as General Petraeus’s predecessor before being appointed as chief of staff of the Army, was aimed at prompting the Iraqis to take more responsibility for security by reducing American forces.

That approach faltered when the Iraqi security forces showed themselves unprepared to carry out their expanded duties, and sectarian killings soared.

In contrast, the new approach reflects the counterinsurgency precept that protection of the population is best way to isolate insurgents, encourage political accommodations and gain intelligence on numerous threats. A core assumption of the plan is that American troops cannot impose a military solution, but that the United States can use force to create the conditions in which political reconciliation is possible.

To develop the plan, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker assembled a Joint Strategic Assessment Team, which sought to define the conflict and outline the elements of a new strategy. It included officers like Col. H. R. McMaster, the field commander who carried out the successful “clear, hold and build” operation in Tal Afar and who wrote a critical account of the Joint Chiefs of Staff role during the Vietnam War; Col. John R. Martin, who teaches at the Army War College and was a West Point classmate of General Petraeus; and David Kilcullen, an Australian counterinsurgency expert who has a degree in anthropology.

State Department officials, including Robert Ford, an Arab expert and the American ambassador to Algeria, were also involved. So were a British officer and experts outside government like Stephen D. Biddle, a military expert at the Council on Foreign Relations.

The team determined that Iraq was in a “communal struggle for power,” (aka a sectarian civil war! http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif ) in the words of one senior officer who participated in the effort. Adding to the problem, the new Iraqi government was struggling to unite its disparate factions and to develop the capability to deliver basic services and provide security.

Extremists were fueling the violence, as were nations like Iran, which they concluded was arming and equipping Shiite militant groups, and Syria, which was allowing suicide bombers to cross into Iraq.

Like the Baker-Hamilton commission, which issued its report last year, the team believed that political, military and economic efforts were needed, including diplomatic discussions with Iran, officials said. There were different views about how aggressive to be in pressing for the removal of overtly sectarian officials, and several officials said that theme was toned down somewhat in the final plan.

The plan itself was written by the Joint Campaign Redesign Team, (man,the military really loves "joints", VN deja vu!). an allusion to the fact that the plan inherited from General Casey was being reworked. Much of the redesign has already been put into effect, including the decision to move troops out of large bases and to act as partners more fully with the Iraqi security forces.

The overarching goal, an American official said, is to advance political accommodation and avoid undercutting the authority of the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. While the plan seeks to achieve stability, several officials said it anticipates that less will be accomplished in terms of national reconciliation by the end of 2009 than did the plan developed by General Casey.

The plan also emphasizes encouraging political accommodation at the local level. The command has established a team to oversee efforts to reach out to former insurgents and tribal leaders. It is dubbed the Force Strategic Engagement Cell http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif, and is overseen by a British general. In the terminology of the plan, the aim is to identify potentially “reconcilable” groups and encourage them to move away from violence.

However, groups like Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a Sunni Arab extremist group that American intelligence officials say has foreign leadership, and cells backed by Iran are seen as implacable foes.

“You are not out there trying to defeat your enemies wholesale,” said one military official who is knowledgeable about the plan. “You are out there trying to draw them into a negotiated power-sharing agreement where they decide to quit fighting you. They don’t decide that their conflict is over. The reasons for conflict remain, but they quit trying to address it through violence. In the end, we hope that that alliance of convenience to fight with Al Qaeda becomes a connection to the central government as well.”

The hope is that sufficient progress might be made at the local level to encourage accommodation at the national level, and vice versa. The plan also calls for efforts to encourage the rule of law, such as the establishment of secure zones in Baghdad and other cities to promote criminal trials and process detainee cases.

To help measure progress in tamping down civil strife, Col. William Rapp, a senior aide to General Petraeus, oversaw an effort to develop a standardized measure of sectarian violence. One result was a method that went beyond the attacks noted in American military reports and which incorporated Iraqi data.

“We are going to try a dozen different things,” said one senior officer. “Maybe one of them will flatline. One of them will do this much. One of them will do this much more. After a while, we believe there is chance you will head into success. I am not saying that we are absolutely headed for success.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/world/middleeast/24military.html

[xrayzebra]

Wonder how the dimm-o-craps of today would have viewed the
Battle of the Bulge of WWII. Damn good thing Harry Reid,
Nancy Pelosi and others weren't around. We would have lost.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I suspect the war in Iraq will be no different.


Good news, especially since you've been right about everything else.

[Extra Stout]

Name one war in which the ultimate outcome was assured 60 days prior to the end of the war.


The European campaign in World War II.

[PixelPusher]

Who says 60 days won't change a war?

Name one war in which the ultimate outcome was assured 60 days prior to the end of the war.

Most wars end on a decisive battle or event. I suspect the war in Iraq will be no different. Insurgent groups are more and more abandoning their ties with al Qaeda and turning on them. There appears to be dissention in the ranks of al Qaeda in Pakistan.

Who knows, it could be over tomorrow.
Even after 4 years of this, you still think this is a conventional war...WWII was over when we reached Berlin/Tokyo; The Civil War was over when the South surrendered, etc.

Neocons need to get over their "I'm Churchill during WWII" fantasies and adjust to a different world.

[Nbadan]

Who's the decider?


Most Americans see President Bush as intransigent on Iraq and prefer that the Democratic-controlled Congress make decisions over a possible withdrawal of U.S. forces, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

As the president and Congress move toward a possible constitutional confrontation over the war, both receive negative marks from the public for their handling of the situation in Iraq. But by a large margin, Americans trust the Democrats rather than the president to find a solution to a conflict that remains enormously unpopular. And more than six in 10 in the new poll said Congress should have the final say on when to bring the troops home.

The president has steadfastly asserted his power as commander-in-chief to make decisions about the war, but his posture is now viewed by majorities of Democrats, independents and even Republicans as too inflexible. Asked whether Bush is willing enough to change policies in Iraq, nearly eight in 10 Americans said no.

. . .

And by 2-1, Americans said Congress rather than the president should have the final decision about deciding when to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq. Even nearly three in 10 Republicans side with Congress over the president on this question.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/23/AR2007072301143.html)

[Nbadan]

Editorial Observer
Just What the Founders Feared: An Imperial President Goes to War
By ADAM COHEN
Published: July 23, 2007


....The founders were particularly wary of giving the president power over war. They were haunted by Europe’s history of conflicts started by self-aggrandizing kings. John Jay, the first chief justice of the United States, noted in Federalist No. 4 that “absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal.”...

....When they drafted the Constitution, Madison and his colleagues wrote their skepticism into the text. In Britain, the king had the authority to declare war, and raise and support armies, among other war powers. The framers expressly rejected this model and gave these powers not to the president, but to Congress.

The Constitution does make the president “commander in chief,” a title President Bush often invokes. But it does not have the sweeping meaning he suggests. The framers took it from the British military, which used it to denote the highest-ranking official in a theater of battle. Alexander Hamilton emphasized in Federalist No. 69 that the president would be “nothing more” than “first general and admiral,” responsible for “command and direction” of military forces.

The founders would have been astonished by President Bush’s assertion that Congress should simply write him blank checks for war. They gave Congress the power of the purse so it would have leverage to force the president to execute their laws properly. Madison described Congress’s control over spending as “the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.”...

***

The Constitution cannot enforce itself. It is, as the constitutional scholar Edwin Corwin famously observed, an “invitation to struggle” among the branches, but the founders wisely bequeathed to Congress some powerful tools for engaging in the struggle. It is no surprise that the current debate over a deeply unpopular war is arising in the context of a Congressional spending bill. That is precisely what the founders intended....

NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/23/opinion/23mon4.html?hp)

[DarkReign]

He controls the military.
They control the checkbook.

Who didnt knwo this? And even so, why did Congress wilt on their supposed "fund-cutting"?

Because that doesnt get you reelected. Should be term limits. Thatd fix that problem. Representatives who know their time is up at the end of their current term would be much more willing to "go with their gut". As it is, the first question in EVERY politicians mind is "How is this going to affect me at the polls?" When we all know what they should be asking.

Term. Limits.

[Nbadan]

Nah, the Demos are playing this right for once. After all, they got Dubya to commit to a Sept. timeline to show some progress in Iraq or face 'serious consequences'....not coincidently, the Demos timed the next administration funding request for the Iraq war with what everyone already knows will just be more administration delay.....more stalling......more costs in lives and $$$....

[Nbadan]

Of course, the biggest absurdity of the whole war is that in 01-02, before the initial invasion to topple Saddam, the U.S. funded and supplied Iraqi opposition groups that later morphed into sectarian civil war...that morphed into Al-Queda-in-Iraq....

Did we provoke attacks in the Iraqi no-fly zone to help justify the war?

At a press briefing on Sept. 16, 2002, Rumsfeld was asked whether the ongoing air assaults on Iraq were laying the groundwork for an invasion, and when the more aggressive rules had been introduced. This press briefing occurred four days after the Center for Defense Information published an interview with RAdm Stephen Baker, who seemed to predict an invasion, saying “these strikes seem like a notable escalation of operations over the no-fly zones.”

On the 16th, Rumsfeld’s reply to both questions were evasive. As he avoided identifying the date for the rule change, Rumsfeld tried joking, then giving an absurdly long span of time within which it must have occurred (i.e. sometime within the last year), and later he ignored calls that he get back to reporters with the exact date. Rumsfeld even claimed he had no record of when he issued the new orders.

That is preposterous on the face of it. By itself, the secrecy shrouding the date shows that it is significant in some broader way to the administration. There are other clues that lead in the same direction. For one thing, the negative evidence is overwhelming. US pilots conducted ever more daring attacks upon Iraq during the summer of 2002—for example, the Sunday Express reported a massive raid to destroy the Iraqi command and control center on Aug. 6, an incursion over Baghdad on Aug. 7, followed by the seizure of several air bases inside Iraq on Aug. 8. But both UK and US defense officials were virtually mum about these activities, and when obliged to comment they portrayed all of them as simple responses to Iraqi provocations. In other words, the total lack of candor during this entire period is strong evidence that the armed forces knew that Bush was up to something that had to be kept secret.

Anyway, we can see from the timeline that Rumsfeld had maintained this kind of evasiveness over a long period. Already on May 23, 2002 Rumsfeld had been asked by Wolf Blitzer whether the US planes patrolling the No-fly Zone were now involved in serious combat: “Obviously there's no specific authorization from the President yet to take military action against the Iraqis. But you probably noticed in the last few days alone -- what? -- there were several incidents that the U.S. was shot at by Iraqi ground fire in the no-fly zones, and the U.S. shot right back. Is that situation heating up right now?” Rumsfeld replies, “No...There has not been any noticeable change in the recent period with respect to the frequency.” That appears to be inaccurate, to judge by the newly released RAF documents below about the rise in joint UK/US air assaults during the summer of 2002 before the war...

THE RAF and US aircraft doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs on Iraq in 2002 in an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war, new evidence has shown. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article527701.ece)

[xrayzebra]

Even after 4 years of this, you still think this is a conventional war...WWII was over when we reached Berlin/Tokyo; The Civil War was over when the South surrendered, etc.

Neocons need to get over their "I'm Churchill during WWII" fantasies and adjust to a different world.

How many men did we have under arms during WWII and
the Civil War? Considerably more than what we have now.
And WWII was supported by the Nation as a whole.
During the Civil War there was a President who governed
with an iron fist. Read a little bit of history. In both
the wars you cited things were run considerably different
than they are now. Reid, Pelosi, Kerry and numerous
others wouldn't have lasted two mins in Lincoln's time.

[clambake]

How many men did we have under arms during WWII and
the Civil War? Considerably more than what we have now.
And WWII was supported by the Nation as a whole.
During the Civil War there was a President who governed
with an iron fist. Read a little bit of history. In both
the wars you cited things were run considerably different
than they are now. Reid, Pelosi, Kerry and numerous
others wouldn't have lasted two mins in Lincoln's time.
That's why he suggested you need to adjust to a different world. Bush is claiming that al-Qeada and al-Qeada in Iraq have formed a coalition. You'd think he'd be a little more proud of his creation.

[boutons_]

That September Report on Iraq? It's Not the Only One.

By Robin Wright
The Washington Post

Thursday 26 July 2007

The White House may have killed attempts to revive the much-heralded Iraq Study Group, but the Bush administration will still face a tough, independent evaluation of the progress in Iraq - from one of its own agencies.

In a little-noticed addition to legislation requiring the July and September assessments on Iraq from the White House, Congress mandated a third report from the agency that has quietly done the most work to track the missteps, miscalculations, misspent funds and shortfalls of both the United States and Iraq since the 2003 invasion: the Government Accountability Office.

The GAO's international affairs team has had far more experience in Iraq than the study group led by former secretary of state James A. Baker III and former congressman Lee Hamilton (D-Ind.) or any of the other independent panels that have weighed in on Iraq. Indeed, the study group consulted the GAO team in preparing its report. Over the past four years, the GAO has issued 91 reports on Iraq, on topics including the mismanagement of Iraq's oil industry and problems in its new army.

The GAO team is back in Iraq this week doing research to make its own assessment of the 18 benchmarks covered by the administration's reports.

The 15-person team includes an array of specialists, lawyers, economists, foreign policy experts and statisticians. Most have been working on Iraq since June 2003, when the first GAO reports were mandated. They work on a day-to-day basis with the departments of State and Defense, but the GAO makes independent assessments.

The GAO report is due Sept. 1 - two weeks before the administration's document. So it may set a standard that makes it harder for the administration to attach caveats to its answers, as outside analysts say it did in the July report.

The administration's assessments are more nuanced, with grading based on whether Iraq is making "satisfactory progress" or "unsatisfactory progress" on the 18 political, military and economic benchmarks. The GAO is mandated to give a more straightforward "yes" or "no" on whether the benchmarks have been achieved, said Joseph A. Christoff, director of the GAO's International Affairs and Trade Team, which will write the report.

Christoff anticipates blunt critiques in the GAO report, based on benchmarks his team has long been monitoring as part of its oversight of Iraq.

On Iraq's military, for example, the administration's July report said Iraq is making "satisfactory progress" on providing three brigades for the new U.S.-led Baghdad security plan.

But Christoff said the GAO is probing deeper. "For us, it's not just an issue of showing up, but showing up with equipment and logistical support so they can move on their own, and then being effective," he said.

The Iraqi military has serious shortcomings, including, according to a Pentagon report, a no-show rate of one-third to one-half on any given day, Christoff said. "Celebrating 360,000 trained and equipped forces says nothing about their loyalty or effectiveness," he said.

On Iraqi politics, a pending law to equitably distribute Iraq's oil income has come to symbolize attempts to address the needs of all ethnic and sectarian communities. The July report acknowledges that the Iraqi government has made "unsatisfactory progress" in passing legislation but says it is too early to tell what will be enacted and rejects any revision of U.S. plans or strategy.

Christoff questions whether that conclusion is giving the Iraqis the benefit of the doubt. Only one of four pieces of legislation required on Iraq's oil sector is now before the parliament, and it addresses only who will be responsible for distributing oil, not how revenue will be shared among the communities, he said. A second bill on revenue-sharing is being debated in the cabinet. But two other basic laws - on creating a national oil company and restructuring the oil ministry - have not been drafted, he said.

"So much has to be done that it will be difficult to meet this benchmark, even by September," Christoff said.

On Iraq's economy, the July report said Baghdad is progressing satisfactorily in allocating $10 billion for development to its ministries and provinces, much of it for electricity and oil industry infrastructure. But Christoff is again skeptical. "If the past is any indication, it will also be very difficult to meet this benchmark," he said.

The need for development in the two sectors is critical. The oil-rich country last year spent $2.6 billion to import gasoline, diesel fuel for electricity and kerosene for cooking, because it cannot refine enough oil, Christoff said. Also, U.S. officials acknowledge, Iraq managed to allocate only about a quarter of the $10 billion in development funds during the first six months of 2007 - much of which has not been spent.

"When you look at what is needed and what the goals are, there's a huge gap," Christoff said. And the gap between the administration's and the GAO's assessments on these central issues is likely to be reflected in other benchmarks, he said.

The GAO team is due back Aug. 4, after which it will begin writing its report.

[Yonivore]

Is the War Lost? Three Inconvenient Truths About Iraq Right Now (http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=072707A)


Democratic Party opponents of the Iraq War are now deeply invested in a withdrawal strategy. They argue, as Harry Reid has phrased it, that the war is lost. But there are three inconvenient truths...

First, one of the principal purposes of the surge is to persuade the Iraqi population that we are going to stay in their neighborhoods until the Iraqi army and police can take over and bring an end to violence. Only when they have confidence that we will not abandon them to the terrorists will Iraqis come forward—as they now appear to be doing—with information about who among them are the terrorists, militia members and other killers, and where they can be found.

Accordingly, efforts to force the withdrawal of our troops at a time certain undermine this policy and the work and bravery of our soldiers. They cause Iraqis to doubt our promises of long term support, and weaken their incentive to assist us with intelligence.
In a recent blogger conference with Colonel Stephen Twitty, Commander of the 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, Multi-Natinal Division-North (MND-N), that very question was asked:


"Has the withdrawal debate made the Iraqis fearful and damaged human intelligence capabilities?"


"Absolutely. It comes up daily. They accuse us of betraying them, and have stopped giving good intel as a result. It's significant.


Timetables, then, and pressing for a quick withdrawal, become a self-fulfilling prophesy. In other words, if the surge fails, President Bush will not be the only politician who takes the blame.

Second, although Senator Reid and other war opponents can glibly claim that there is no hope that an independent Iraq can survive, there is one group that is truly expert on that question, and they clearly don't believe it. That group consists of the Iraqis who are now in the Iraqi government—from Prime Minister al-Maliki on down—who risk their lives and the lives of their families every day that they serve. They are Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, and all of them are targets of the insurgency and the terrorists of al Qaeda. What motive could these dedicated Iraqis possibly have to place themselves in such a position unless they believe that they can keep the country together and in the end produce a peaceful and unified state?

When we hear war opponents expound on the fact that the enmity between Shiites and Sunnis goes back a thousand years, and that it can't possibly be resolved by the United States in any reasonable period of time, we should think of the Sunnis and Shiites in the Iraqi government today, and whether they think this is a persuasive argument. If they did, they would have been gone long ago—now in Iran or Syria—trying to start their new lives. But they're not—they're in Baghdad—a completely irrational act unless they believe that this historic religious rivalry can be controlled and subdued. It is a wildly arrogant idea that we can tell them that their history cannot be overcome.

Finally, if—as seems apparent now—the surge is succeeding, opponents of the war are going to be hard-pressed to make the case for abandoning Iraq, even if there is no Shi'ite-Sunni political settlement in sight. The inconvenient truth here is that, apart from the irreconcilable Left, the American people's support for withdrawal has been based on an assessment that we were losing the war. If that no longer seems true, support for withdrawal will melt away. The Democratic leaders know this; that's why they made a concerted effort last week to get a vote on withdrawal in July. September, which will likely see a favorable report by General Petraeus, will be too late. Claims that the inability of the Iraqis to reach a political settlement is a reason for us to leave will ring a bit hollow in the face of a possible military success. After all, the American people have noticed that our Congress, unthreatened by anything more serious than an upcoming election, couldn't pass an immigration bill, can't eliminate earmarks or adopt ethics rules, and can't agree on energy legislation when gasoline is $3.50 a gallon. Politicians, they know, will be politicians, but that doesn't mean we should hand our enemies a victory instead of a defeat.

Nevertheless, because weakening the will of the American people is the only way that al-Qaeda and our other opponents in Iraq can hope to win, between now and September we will see an all-out effort to inflict heavy casualties on our troops and on Iraqi civilians. Unfortunately, this can be a winning strategy. If we are unprepared for it, a bad August and early September could still lead to a collapse in public support that would even sweep congressional Republicans with it. We should not forget that the North Vietnamese Tet offensive of 1968—although it resulted ultimately in a military defeat for the North—became a turning point in the war because it destroyed the American public's belief in our ultimate military success. A series of spectacular and dramatic attacks could do the same for our enemies in Iraq. They know that, and we should expect them to try.

But if these attacks do not occur—or if they do and are quickly quelled—the success of the surge will be an inconvenient political truth that many in the Democratic party will not easily survive.
Peter J. Wallison is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He was White House counsel for Ronald Reagan.

I agree.

[boutons_]

"until the Iraqi army and police can take over and bring an end to violence."

yeah, right. Many Sunnies see the army/police as enforcers for the Shiites, or outtright members of the Shiite militia.

"That group consists of the Iraqis who are now in the Iraqi government"

... who live in daily fear for their lives, that can't assured by the US + Iraqi forces.

If these Iraqi politicians are so sure the Iraqis can make it by themselves, let's pull out and let them get on with their civil war. We know they won't get on with effective government.

Military success of the surge will probably be followed by resurgence of the insurgents, as have all other US military "successes", since the US military isn't big enough to clear and hold all of Bagdad, let alone all of Iraq.

The ultimate problem in VN is the same as in Iraqi, the natives are not strong enough , politically and militarily, and credible enough to hold the fake, deeply divided artificial country together.

btw, Maliki and others in the Iraqi govt, and most of the Iraqi civilians, want the US to leave because they believe the US presence if inflaming and prolonging the violence.

The AEI, along with PNAC, and other neo-cunts provided the intellectual framework in 1990s for the Iraqi oil-grab war. Of course, they are therefore profoundly self-interested in prolonging THEIR bogus war, no matter what the costs, to save their own faces, and blaming everybody but the Repugs and themselves for the shithole war they bullied and lied the US into.

Most of these neo-cunt assholes were around during VN and should have learned their lesson then about invading a non-threatening country and what would happen if the war went bad and dragged on too long and US citizens turn against the war.

As in VN, US military victory isn't the question. It's the inability of the natives to run their own country after it has been broken by the US imperialistic invaders.

The US has already broken ALL its promises of reconstruction that affects the "hearts and minds" of everyday Iraqis.

The US refusal to protect Iraqis who risk their lives helping the US and the refusal to grant them permission to live in the USA has further undermined Iraqi confidence in and willingness to help the US.

My guess is that AEI/PNAC have huge contributions from the oilcos and MIC.

[boutons_]

US press reporting the good news


US Drops Baghdad Electricity Reports

By Noam N. Levey and Alexandra Zavis
The Los Angeles Times

Friday 27 July 2007

The daily length of time that residents have power has dropped. The figure is considered a key indicator of quality of life.

Washington - As the Bush administration struggles to convince lawmakers that its Iraq war strategy is working, it has stopped reporting to Congress a key quality-of-life indicator in Baghdad: how long the power stays on.

Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week that Baghdad residents could count on only "an hour or two a day" of electricity. That's down from an average of five to six hours a day earlier this year.

( more proof the surge is working! )

But that piece of data has not been sent to lawmakers for months because the State Department, which prepares a weekly "status report" for Congress on conditions in Iraq, stopped estimating in May how many hours of electricity Baghdad residents typically receive each day.

Instead, the department now reports on the electricity generated nationwide, a measurement that does not indicate how much power Iraqis in Baghdad or elsewhere actually receive.

The change, a State Department spokesman said, reflects a technical decision by reconstruction officials in Baghdad who are scaling back efforts to estimate electricity consumption as they wind down U.S. involvement in rebuilding Iraq's power grid.

Department officials said the new approach was more accurate than the previous estimates, which they said had been very rough and had failed to reflect wide variations across Baghdad and the country.

"Nothing is being hidden. There is no ulterior motive," said David Foley, the department's Middle East spokesman. "We are continuing to provide detailed information and have been completely transparent."

The State Department's new method shows that the national electricity supply is 4% lower than a year ago, according to the July 11 report.

( and year ago it already sucked, was MUCH WORSE after dubya and dickhead broke Saddam's Iraq )

The reporting change has triggered criticism that the administration is disclosing less information at the same time President Bush is facing off against Congress over how much progress is being made in Iraq. Bush has been working for months to show that the troop buildup he announced in January is stabilizing the country.

"It's unfortunate," said Jason H. Campbell, a senior research assistant at the Brookings Institution who has been tracking quality-of-life measurements in Iraq since 2003. "What makes this metric even worth tracking is you want to see what's happening to the average Iraqi."

Campbell said the new reporting method made it impossible to know what the power situation was in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq.

Col. Mike Moon, who oversees the Army Corps of Engineers' electricity reconstruction efforts in Iraq, said he thought the change was a mistake. The total amount of electricity being generated in Iraq makes no difference to the individual who has no electricity for his air conditioner, Moon said.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who sharply questioned Crocker about electricity during a recent Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, sent a letter to the State Department last week complaining about the new measurement. She said she was concerned the White House was trying to obscure the deteriorating situation in Baghdad, the focus of Bush's "surge" of 30,000 additional troops.

"The president continues to keep information away from the American people and the Congress," said Boxer, who advocates withdrawing troops. "It's obvious that he wants to paint a rosy picture."

State Department officials in Baghdad and Washington said the new method was not an attempt to hide information. They noted that Crocker was candid about the electricity situation when he testified to lawmakers last week.

Iraq's electricity supply has received less attention than other national indicators as debate over the president's surge has intensified in Washington.

The administration's July progress report focused on 18 benchmarks of Iraqi government progress toward political reconciliation among ethnic and religious communities.

However, the reliability of the electricity supply has long been seen by Iraqis as a key indicator of the success of the U.S. enterprise.

Crocker told CBS News this month that electricity was "more important to the average Iraqi than all 18 benchmarks rolled up into one."

( unemployment rate is 60%, but the surge is working )

In the spring, the State Department reported that Baghdad residents were typically receiving up to six hours of electricity a day. In the rest of the country, Iraqis could count on 10 or 11 hours.

But the situation has deteriorated substantially as stifling heat has set in. Temperatures in Baghdad are now reaching above 110.

U.S. officials say that they have made progress and that the persistent electricity shortages partly reflect growing demand as Iraqis buy more air conditioners, refrigerators and other appliances.

Continuing instability is also a factor, U.S. officials acknowledge.

"The main reasons have to do with continued attacks by insurgents against electrical transmission lines and against fuel pipelines that provide the energy source that you need to generate electricity," Crocker told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Those problems have been compounded by the slow pace of rebuilding a power system that had been deteriorating for years before the U.S. invasion, said Moon of the Army Corps of Engineers.

For many on Capitol Hill, the pace of progress is increasingly frustrating. "Here we are in the fifth year, and we simply have not greatly improved the quality of life," said Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), who has called on the president to draw up a plan for a withdrawal. "It's very troubling."

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

Entrepreneurs have also set up 1000s of electric generators and sell electricity.

yep, "shock and awe", as the macho military phrased it, really took Iraq back to the Middle Ages.

"We're from the US govt and we're here to help you" http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

[boutons_]

July 28, 2007

As U.S. Rebuilds, Iraq Won’t Act on Finished Work

By JAMES GLANZ

Iraq’s national government is refusing to take possession of thousands of American-financed reconstruction projects, forcing the United States either to hand them over to local Iraqis, who often lack the proper training and resources to keep the projects running, or commit new money to an effort that has already consumed billions of taxpayer dollars.

The conclusions, detailed in a report released Friday by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, a federal oversight agency, include the finding that of 2,797 completed projects costing $5.8 billion, Iraq’s national government had, by the spring of this year, accepted only 435 projects valued at $501 million. Few transfers to Iraqi national government control have taken place since the current Iraqi government, which is frequently criticized for inaction on matters relating to the American intervention, took office in 2006.

The United States often promotes the number of rebuilding projects, such as power plants and hospitals, that have been completed in Iraq, citing them as signs of progress in a nation otherwise fraught with violence and political stalemate. But closer examination by the inspector general’s office, headed by Stuart W. Bowen Jr., has found that a number of individual projects are crumbling, abandoned or otherwise inoperative only months after the United States declares that they have been successfully completed. The United States always intended to hand over projects to the Iraqi government when they were completed.

Although Mr. Bowen’s latest report is primarily a financial overview, he said in an interview that it raised serious questions on whether the problems his inspectors had found were much more widespread in the reconstruction program.

The process of transferring projects to Iraq “worked for a while,” Mr. Bowen said. But then the new government took over and installed its finance minister, Bayan Jabr, who has been a continuing center of controversy in his various government posts and is formally in charge of the transfers. “After Mr. Jabr took over, that process ceased to function,” Mr. Bowen said.

In fact, in the first two quarters of 2007, Mr. Bowen said, his inspectors found significant problems in all but two of the 12 projects they examined after the United States declared those projects completed.

In one of the most recent cases, a $90 million project to overhaul two giant turbines at the Dora power plant in Baghdad failed after completion because employees at the plant did not know how to operate the turbines properly and the wrong fuel was used. The additional power is critically needed in Baghdad, where residents often have only a few hours of electricity a day.

Because the Iraqi government will not formally accept projects like the refurbished turbines, the United States is “finding someone at the local level to handle the project, handing them the keys and saying, ‘Operate and maintain it,’ ” another official in the inspector general’s office said.

If the pace of the American rebuilding program is a guide, those problems could quickly accelerate: So far, the United States has declared that $5.8 billion in American taxpayer-financed projects have been completed, but most of the rest of the projects within a $21 billion rebuilding program that Mr. Bowen examined in the report are expected to be finished by the end of this year. Some of that money is also being used to train and equip Iraqi security forces rather than finance construction projects.

The report was released too late in the day to contact Mr. Jabr, who is part of a Shiite alliance in charge of the government. In his previous position as interior minister, he was accused of running Shiite death squads out of the ministry. In his current position he has developed a reputation as being slow to release budget money to Iraqi government entities, which would have to run the new projects at substantial expense.

He is sometimes suspected of seeking to use his position to undermine the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, who is also a Shiite but answers to a different faction within the alliance. In interviews, Mr. Jabr has rejected those accusations and says he strongly supports the government.

American researchers who have followed the reconstruction said Mr. Bowen’s report raised serious new doubts about the program. Rick Barton, co-director of the postconflict reconstruction project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a research institute in Washington, said the lack of interest on the part of the Iraqis was the latest demonstration that they were not involved enough in its planning stages. “It sort of confirms that you really need pre-agreement on the projects you are attempting,” Mr. Barton said, “or you end up with these kinds of projects at the tail end, where people don’t know much about the program and they haven’t bought into it.”

Mr. Barton said that the episode was probably inevitable given that the elected Iraqi government operated mainly within the fortified Green Zone in Baghdad and had little capability of managing thousands of new projects around the country. He said that this was the most likely explanation — rather than any ill will on Mr. Jabr’s part. But Mr. Barton said the findings indicated that the United States should put some of the remaining money in the program into “sustainment,” the term for running the projects, rather than continuing to build when there might be no one to run the projects.

“To build something and not have these issues resolved from top to bottom is unfathomable,” said William L. Nash, a retired general who is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and an expert on Middle East reconstruction. “The management of the reconstruction program for Iraq has been a near-total disaster from the beginning.”

( hey, the Repugs are charge! Is anybody surprised? The Repugs don't do government, they hate government! The Repugs only do politics, not government. )


The report says that of the 2,797 projects declared completed, besides the 435 projects formally accepted by Iraq’s central government, 1,141 have been transferred to local Iraqi authorities. American government entities in charge of those projects include the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the American-led multinational forces in Iraq, the United States Embassy and the United States Agency for International Development. In letters attached to Mr. Bowen’s report, several of those entities largely concurred with many of Mr. Bowen’s findings and said that new agreements were being hammered out with the Iraqi government to smooth the transfers.

A spokesman for the development agency, David Snider, said in a statement that work now being undertaken by the agency “helps address the concerns” raised in the report. Mr. Snider said that the agency was seeking to formalize an agreement with the Iraqi government that would protect the American investment there.

The agency “usually secures these commitments from recipient governments before the initiation of a project,” Mr. Snider said. But in the case of Iraq, he said, the American rebuilding effort “began before the current Iraqi government was established.”

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

Iraq is one big MOTHERFUCKING REPUG shithole.

You're doing a hell of of job, Mr. CEO/MBA dubya! http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

.

[boutons_]

Heat Rises Between Iraq PM and Petraeus
By STEVEN R. HURST and QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA
The Associated Press
Saturday, July 28, 2007; 2:05 PM


BAGHDAD -- A key aide says Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's relations with Gen. David Petraeus are so poor the Iraqi leader may ask Washington to withdraw the overall U.S. commander from his Baghdad post.

Iraq's (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/iraq.html?nav=el) foreign minister calls the relationship "difficult." Petraeus, who says their ties are "very good," acknowledges expressing his "full range of emotions" at times with al-Maliki. U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who meets with both at least weekly, concedes "sometimes there are sporty exchanges."

It seems less a clash of personality than of policy. The Shiite Muslim prime minister has reacted most sharply to the American general's tactic of enlisting Sunni militants, presumably including past killers of Iraqi Shiites, as allies in the fight against al-Qaida here.

An associate said al-Maliki once, in discussion with President Bush, even threatened to counter this by arming Shiite militias.

History shows that the strain of war often turns allies into uneasy partners. The reality of how these allies get along may lie somewhere between the worst and best reports about the relationship, one central to the future of Iraq and perhaps to the larger Middle East.

A tangle of issues confronts them, none with easy solutions:

_ Al-Maliki, a Shiite activist who spent the Saddam Hussein years in exile, hotly objects to the recent U.S. practice of recruiting tribal groups tied to the Sunni insurgency for the fight against the Sunni extremists of al-Qaida, deemed "Enemy No. 1" by the Americans. His loud complaints have won little but a U.S. pledge to let al-Maliki's security apparatus screen the recruits.

_ Aides say the Iraqi leader also has spoken bitterly about delivery delays of promised U.S. weapons and equipment for his forces.

_ Petraeus, meanwhile, must deal with an Iraqi military and police force, nominally under al-Maliki's control, that often acts out of sectarian, namely Shiite, interests, and not national Iraqi interests. He faces a significant challenge in persuading al-Maliki to shed his ties to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who runs the Mahdi Army militia.

_ On the political front, Crocker is grappling with the prime minister's seeming foot-dragging or ineffectiveness in pushing through an oil-industry law and other legislation seen as critical benchmarks by the U.S. government. Reporting to Congress in September, Crocker may have to explain such Iraqi inaction while U.S. troops are fighting and dying to give al-Maliki political breathing space.

( "there they go again" the US oil grab is the HIGHEST US priority in Iraq, has been since the late 1990s' )

First word of strained relations began leaking out with consistency earlier this month.Sami al-Askari, a key aide to al-Maliki and a member of the prime minister's Dawa Party, said the policy of incorporating one-time Sunni insurgents into the security forces shows Petraeus has a "real bias and it bothers the Shiites," whose communities have been targeted by Sunnis in Iraq's sectarian conflict.

"It is possible that we may demand his removal," al-Askari said.

A lawmaker from the al-Sadr bloc, who wouldn't allow use of his name because of the political sensitivity of the matter, said al-Maliki once told Petraeus: "I can't deal with you anymore. I will ask for someone else to replace you."

Such a request isn't likely to get much of a hearing in Washington, where the Bush administration presents Petraeus as one general who can improve the Iraq situation.

Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told Newsweek magazine the Petraeus-al-Maliki relationship is "difficult." For one thing, the Americans retain control of the Iraqi military. "The prime minister cannot just pick up the phone and have Iraqi army units do what he says. Maliki needs more leverage," Zebari said.

The prime minister has complained to President Bush about the policy of arming Sunnis, said the Sadrist lawmaker.

"He told Bush that if Petraeus continues doing that, he would arm Shiite militias. Bush told al-Maliki to calm down," according to this parliament member, who said he was told of the exchange by al-Maliki.

In Washington, White House officials who have sat in on Bush's video conferences with al-Maliki denied that exchange took place.

In a public outburst earlier this month, al-Maliki said American forces should leave Iraq and turn over security to Iraqi troops. He quickly backpedaled, but the damage was done.

"There is no leader in the world that is under more pressure than Nouri al-Maliki, without question. Sometimes he reflects that frustration. I don't blame him," Crocker told The Associated Press.

"We are dealing with existential issues. There are no second-tier problems," said the veteran Middle East diplomat. "And we all feel very deeply about what we're trying to get done. So, yeah, sometimes there are sporty exchanges. And believe me, I've had my share of them.

"That in no way means, in my view, strained relations," Crocker said. "Wrestling with the things we're all wrestling with here, it would almost be strange if you didn't get a little passionate from time to time."

Petraeus called his relations with al-Maliki "very good ... and that's the truth." But he acknowledged, "We have not pulled punches with each other."

In an interview with the AP, the U.S. commander noted that more than 3,600 U.S. military personnel have given their lives in Iraq, "and where we see something that could unhinge the progress that our soldiers and their soldiers are fighting to make ... or jeopardize some of the very hard-fought gains that we have made, I'm going to speak up. And I have on occasion. And on a couple of occasions have demonstrated the full range of emotions."

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

The big picture is that Maliki is most interested in keeping the Sunnis down, and taking his own sweet time (obstructed in parliament by the Sunnis) since he must figure if the Americans leave, his own life is more at risk, while Petraeus is interested in dubya's counter-productive obsession with AQI, which is only a small part of the overal violence in Iraq.

[PixelPusher]

^^^Shia? Sunni? Maliki? What does anything in that article have to do with our glorious military offensive against AQI?

[boutons_]

More leftwing/socialist propaganda from US govt employee Bowen


BBC NEWS

Corruption 'mars Iraq rebuilding'

Reports of widespread fraud and waste of funds in Iraq


The US agency overseeing reconstruction in Iraq has told the BBC that economic mismanagement and corruption there is equivalent to "a second insurgency".

The chief auditor assigned by Congress, Stuart Bowen, said the Iraqi government was failing to take responsibility for projects worth billions of dollars.

Mr Bowen also said his agency was investigating more than 50 fraud cases.

Meanwhile, nearly a third of Iraq's population is in need of emergency aid, a report by Oxfam and Iraqi NGOs says.

( WTF is wrong with these Iraqi people? Do like dubya tells Americans to do in The Greatest Democracy in the History of the Universe, "Go the the emergency room" http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif )

The report said the Iraqi government was failing to provide basic essentials such as water, food, sanitation and shelter for up to eight million people.

It warned that the continuing violence was masking a humanitarian crisis that had escalated since the US-led invasion in 2003.

'Troubling'

US Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction Stuart Bowen was appointed to audit $44bn (£22bn) allocated since 2003, after reports of widespread fraud and waste.

The agency publishes quarterly reports on the situation, most of which have complained about a serious lack of progress. Monday's report was no different.

In an interview with the BBC, Mr Bowen said corruption was endemic and described it as "an enemy of democracy".

He added: "We have performed 95 audits that have found instances of programmatic weakness and waste, and we've got 57 ongoing cases right now, criminal cases, looking at fraud."

Mr Bowen said the transfer of projects to Iraqi government control was "troubling", and expressed concern about delays and cost overruns. He also said Iraqi ministries were struggling to administer funds.

Last year, Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's government only spent 22% of its budget on vital rebuilding projects, while spending 99% of the allocation for salaries, he said.

( Damn! sounds just like the Repugs taking care of themselves and their corporate owners and MIC! Those Iraqis are quick learners! http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif )

He said "a pathway towards potential prosperity" could be found only if oil production was brought up to optimal levels, and security and corruption effectively managed.

'Ruined by war'

The Iraqi parliament is about to take the whole of August off as a holiday despite both reports highlighting the plight of many Iraqis.

The BBC's Nicholas Witchell in Baghdad says the report by the UK-based charity and the NGO Co-ordination Committee in Iraq (NCCI) makes alarming reading.


OXFAM/NCCI REPORT

The survey recognises that armed conflict is the greatest problem facing Iraqis, but finds a population "increasingly threatened by disease and malnutrition". ( just like Americans! http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif )

It suggests that 70% of Iraq's 26.5m population are without adequate water supplies, compared to 50% prior to the invasion. Only 20% have access to effective sanitation.

( I remember when American jingos/xenophobes used to ridicule the French for drinking bottled water. Now, Americans spend $10B/year on .... bottled fucking water, 25% of which is nothing but purified tap water! The Americans apparently also "are without adequate water supplies". http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif )

Nearly 30% of children are malnourished, a sharp increase on the situation four years ago. Some 15% of Iraqis regularly cannot afford to eat.

The report also said 92% of Iraq's children suffered from learning problems.

It found that more than two million people have been displaced inside the country, while a further two million have fled to neighbouring countries.

On Thursday, an international conference in Jordan pledged to help the refugees with their difficulties. Oxfam has not operated in Iraq since 2003 for security reasons.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/6922347.stm

Published: 2007/07/30 13:07:11 GMT

© BBC MMVII

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

As Repug Saint Ronnie so famously said:
"We're from the government and we are here to help you!"

You're doing a heckuva job, dubya

.