Geeze are we trying to win this war or what?

U.S. Troops Must Lift Checkpoints

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Tuesday ordered the lifting of joint U.S.-Iraqi military checkpoints around the Shiite militant stronghold of Sadr City and other parts of Baghdad -- another apparent move to assert his authority with the Americans and appeal to his Shiite support base.

U.S. forces disappeared from the checkpoints within hours of the order, setting off celebrations among civilians and armed men gathered on the edge of the sprawling slum that is under the control of the Mahdi Army militia run by radical anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

Iraqi troops loaded coils of barbed wire and red traffic cones onto pickup trucks, while small groups of men and children danced in circles chanting slogans praising al-Sadr, who earlier Tuesday had ordered the area closed to the Iraqi government until U.S. troops lifted what he called their "siege" of the neighborhood.

The order from al-Maliki threatened to further upset relations between the U.S. and the Iraqi government, which became strained last week after Al-Maliki issued a string of bitter complaints, at one point saying he was not "America's man in Iraq."

The tightened security had been credited by some for producing a temporary decline in violence, possibly because they curbed the activities of Shiite death squads blamed for waves of sectarian killings of Sunnis.

But a car bomb exploded in the neighborhood on Tuesday, killing three people and wounding five, police said. On Monday, a bombing there killed at least 33 people.

Elsewhere in Baghdad, in apparently unrelated violence, a suicide car bomber struck a wedding party, killing 10 people, including four children, and wounding 12. Weddings and funerals are often public events in Iraq, making them relatively easy targets for suicide bombers hoping to spark reprisals from Sunnis and push Iraq into a full-blown civil war.

The extra checkpoints were set up last week around Sadr City as U.S. troops searched for a missing American soldier and raided homes looking for death squad leaders in the sprawling slum that is home to an overwhelmingly Shiite population of 2.5 million people.

Other checkpoints manned by U.S. troops were erected in the downtown Karradah neighborhood where the soldier was abducted.

Al-Maliki's statement said such measures "should not be taken except during nighttime curfew hours and emergencies."

"Joint efforts continue to pursue terrorists and outlaws who expose the lives of citizens to killings, abductions and explosions," said the statement, issued in al-Maliki's name in his capacity both as prime minister and commander of Iraq's armed forces.

In a statement addressed to local supporters on Monday, al-Sadr had warned of unspecified action if the military's "siege" continues. He also criticized what he called the silence of politicians over actions by the U.S. military in the district.

"If this siege continues for long, we will resort to actions which I will have no choice but to take, God willing, and when the time is right," he said in the statement.

Al-Maliki was apparently angered by a statement from U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad that the prime minister had agreed to set a timeline for progress on reaching security and political goals -- something al-Maliki denied.

U.S. concern over the deteriorating relationship was evident when National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley showed up unannounced in Baghdad on Monday to meet with al-Maliki and his security chief, Mouwafak al-Rubaie.

American voter support for the war is at a low point as the Nov. 7 midterm elections approach, and a top aide to al-Maliki said the Iraqi leader was using the Republicans' vulnerability on the issue to leverage concessions from the Bush administration - particularly the speedy withdrawal of American forces from Iraqi cities to U.S. bases in the country.

Meanwhile, the U.S. military announced the deaths of two soldiers in fighting Monday, bringing the number of troops killed in Iraq this month to 103.

October has been the fourth deadliest month for American troops since the war began in March 2003. The other highest monthly death tolls were 107 in January 2005; at least 135 in April 2004, and 137 in November 2004.

The military had no immediate comment on a CBS News report saying the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, was expected to recommend Iraq's ill-equipped and marginally effective security forces be increased by up to 100,000 troops. Casey said last month that he would not rule out asking for more forces, something that could allow U.S. troop levels to be gradually reduced.

At least three Iraqi policemen were also reported killed on Tuesday morning in Baghdad and the volatile western city of Falujah, police said.

The bodies of five unidentified people, including a woman, were found dumped early Tuesday morning in eastern Baghdad, police Maj. Mahir Hamid Mussa said. They had been tied up and blindfolded, with their bodies showing signs of torture, Mussa said.

Sheik Raed Naeem al-Juheishi, the head of a non-governmental organization dedicated to tracing the fate of victims of the former regime of Saddam Hussein, was also killed in a drive-by-shooting Monday night in Baghdad's chaotic Dora district, Col. Mohammed Ali said.

According to an Associated Press count, October has recorded more Iraqi civilian deaths -- 1,170 as of Monday -- than any other month since the AP began keeping track in May 2005. The next-highest month was March 2006, when 1,038 Iraqi civilians were killed in the aftermath of the Feb. 22 bombing of an important Shiite shrine in Samarra.

Iraqi and Syrian foreign ministry officials said Syria's foreign minister is considering a visit to Baghdad next month -- the first by a top Syrian figure since Saddam Hussein's fall in 2003

Some U.S. politicians have urged the White House to make overtures to Syria to enlist its help in solving the crisis in Iraq, where Damascus is believed to have influence with some Sunni insurgent groups

I spent a year in Sadr City, March 04 through March 05, and it was a bitch. 2.5 million people in 5 square miles, and more than a few of them hate our guts. All the fighting and working we did to to eradicate the enemy and build infrastructure for the people and it for all intents and puposes get handed back to Muqtada right after we leave....



ETA picture of said shithole and lament for the umpteenth million time why the fuck didnt we kill al'Sadr's ass in 03 as soon as we realized what kind of shitbird he truly is.

Fuck the sunnis and shites.

Pull all forces back to Kurdistan and defend it.

Except for the oil wells which we will keep.

Quoted: I spent a year in Sadr City, March 04 through March 05, and it was a bitch. 2.5 million people in 5 square miles, and more than a few of them hate our guts. All the fighting and working we did to to eradicate the enemy and build infrastructure for the people and it for all intents and puposes get handed back to Muqtada right after we leave....

Today we removed the roadblocks and LEFT.

When are we ever gonna learn?

I too was involved from March 04 to March 05 in Sadr City. Damn shame watching it go back to what is was before all the blood, sweat, and tears went to giveing that place a chance.

That'll teach em!!

Quoted: Geeze are we trying to win this war or what?

Apparently not.  

US Forces Capitulate To Prime Minister In Sadr City...

Change "U.S. Forces" to...George Bush and you'll have it correct.
Our forces could fix the problem if the chicken shit politicians would allow them to do so.  

.

How can we expect our guys to want to keep fighting when this shit keeps happening. We should have taken him out when we had him and his goons surrounded in that mosque.

I honestly would have wanted to throw down my rifle and tell the politicians to go to hell when they pulled our guys back and let sadr walk after that fight. And now again, we give sadr, a clear enemy, what he wants. Why take zarqawi out and let this shithead have whatever he wants?

It isn`t going to work. We started setting up a government before we fully crushed them, and we aren`t being consistant or brutal enough. It isn`t like we don`t have the means to do it, yet we are playing these little games with the backward retards, and losing some of our best countrymen.  

Quoted: Quoted: Geeze are we trying to win this war or what? Apparently not.

It's not clear to me what the DEFINTION of "winning" is in Iraq any longer, other than vague feel-good bullshit.

Quoted: US Forces Capitulate To Prime Minister In Sadr City... Change "U.S. Forces" to...George Bush and you'll have it correct. Our forces could fix the problem if the chicken shit politicians would allow them to do so.

Of course by "US Forces" I mean the CIC and responsible leadership.

And I concur with your assessment completely.

Despite the rhetoric from John Kerry and Michael Moore, we are NOT an occupying force, and Iraq is a sovereign nation.  We are there at their behest and only operate within the parameters they allow.

As for whether or not yielding to Sadr was good idea - only time will tell.  Personally, I think the government wants to take care of the die-Hard Al Qaeda types and worry about Sadr and such after things calm down a little.

Quoted: Despite the rhetoric from John Kerry and Michael Moore, we are NOT an occupying force, and Iraq is a sovereign nation.

Yes. But that right there is, I believe, a fundamental mistake of this whole war.

Screw liberators....It's time to be conquerers

Iraq is a totally dysfunctional state.  It will not be able to maintain order for months or years, or provide  basic services for it's citizens.

We are by definition, an occupying force, and should make ALL operational decisions for the purpose of maintaining order in Iraq.

Authority and responsibility can NOT be separated.

Quoted: Screw liberators....It's time to be conquerers

Agreed!

-Scott

in before the bush apologists

height=8

Quoted: height=8 Quoted: Despite the rhetoric from John Kerry and Michael Moore, we are NOT an occupying force, and Iraq is a sovereign nation.   Yes. But that right there is, I believe, a fundamental mistake of this whole war.

Yep, we needed to think of ourselves as occupiers and as occupiers we needed way more troops. The problem with our position as not occupiers and Iraq being a sovereign country is that if they ask us to leave we'd have to leave. If they do ask us to leave though, good riddance.

All we need is 10-20 more years and iraq will be pacified.

Quoted: ... We are by definition, an occupying force...

By what definition?

Sovereignty was passed to the Interim Iraqi government in Jun 0f '04.  The current administration - voted in by an election marking the greates effort EVER exerted in history to measure the will of the Iraq people - took power sometime in the Spring of '05.

We are still there because we are fighting a common enemy - funded, trainied, and adhering to the same life philosophy of the organization that attacked us on 11 Sep 2001.

Why these simple fact are so muddled to so many Americans is beyond me.

The current Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki evidently derives his power from Sadr's part of Baghdad.

Sadr is a puppet of Iran.

See where this is going?

Quoted: snip We are still there because we are fighting a common enemy - funded, trainied, and adhering to the same life philosophy of the organization that attacked us on 11 Sep 2001. Why these simple fact are so muddled to so many Americans is beyond me.

I don't think that the facts are as "simple" as you are suggesting they are. Not by a long margin.

In fact, you could say that the only thing simple about this is how simply we all convinced ourselves that we would be hailed as liberators.  God Knows I wanted it to be true.

I was wrong, and so were millions of other Americans, and now we are buried there with no way out.

Look at it this way:

The Iraqi government is convinced that there are 2 'types' of insurgent right now:

1) Those that are fighting for 'Iraqi independance'

and

3) Those that are foreign-sponsored terrorists

True or not, that's what they believe...

The strategy that Mr PM is persuing, is to try and separate (1) from (2) and get (1) to lay down arms and join the government.

So he is trying to show that US forces work for him - and take orders from him, thinking that maybe if it becomes clear that the US isn't in control of Iraq and he is, some folks will leave the insurgency, and all that will be left is the foreign-controlled groups...

Now, weather or not he is right - that's another story... But that's what he's trying to do...

Quoted: Look at it this way: The Iraqi government is convinced that there are 2 'types' of insurgent right now: 1) Those that are fighting for 'Iraqi independance' and 3) Those that are foreign-sponsored terrorists True or not, that's what they believe... The strategy that Mr PM is persuing, is to try and separate (1) from (2) and get (1) to lay down arms and join the government. So he is trying to show that US forces work for him - and take orders from him, thinking that maybe if it becomes clear that the US isn't in control of Iraq and he is, some folks will leave the insurgency, and all that will be left is the foreign-controlled groups... Now, weather or not he is right - that's another story... But that's what he's trying to do...

Y'know - I wish I could find some good intellectual debate and discussion on exactly this question - which is, really, what it all boils down to.

Instead, we get the same old all-too-common lately Arfcom ingorant knee jerk rambling.

I am beginning to understand more every day why my older relatives never wanted to talk about Vietnam.  Too many self-proclaimed "experts" everywhere you go.

Quoted: Quoted: US Forces Capitulate To Prime Minister In Sadr City... Change "U.S. Forces" to...George Bush and you'll have it correct. Our forces could fix the problem if the chicken shit politicians would allow them to do so.   Of course by "US Forces" I mean the CIC and responsible leadership. And I concur with your assessment completely.

It is now "their country"...

...I'm not agreeing or disagreeing... But, it is now a country with an elected government.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: US Forces Capitulate To Prime Minister In Sadr City... Change "U.S. Forces" to...George Bush and you'll have it correct. Our forces could fix the problem if the chicken shit politicians would allow them to do so.   Of course by "US Forces" I mean the CIC and responsible leadership. And I concur with your assessment completely. It is now "their country"... ...I'm not agreeing or disagreeing... But, it is now a country with an elected government.

In that case why are we there at all?

If they have things under control to the point they dictate where US forces may and may not be, then we should leave the entire country right now.

We are either in charge or we are not. I don't feel the US forces should be "errand boys" of the Iraqi government anymore than I think they should be "errand boys" for the UN.

It may mean I'm a "armchair expert" but I'm furious about the way this war is being conducted. They say that we are there to fight terrorists. Well Sadr City is FULL OF THEM. Al Sadr is their leader.

Instead of killing him, instead of taking on the people of Sadr City who are our enemy, we have allowed them to order us to leave. It will be perceived as a great victory right up their with Hezbolla's triumph over Israel in Lebanon and the Somalia victory in 1993.

This will encourage and embolden our enemies.

Quoted: In that case why are we there at all? If they have things under control to the point they dictate where US forces may and may not be, then we should leave the entire country right now. We are either in charge or we are not. I don't feel the US forces should be "errand boys" of the Iraqi government anymore than I think they should be "errand boys" for the UN. It may mean I'm a "armchair expert" but I'm furious about the way this war is being conducted. They say that we are there to fight terrorists. Well Sadr City is FULL OF THEM. Al Sadr is their leader. Instead of killing him, instead of taking on the people of Sadr City who are our enemy, we have allowed them to order us to leave. It will be perceived as a great victory right up their with Hezbolla's triumph over Israel in Lebanon and the Somalia victory in 1993. This will encourage and embolden our enemies.

just


I am with you on this one SA.

Quoted: Geeze are we trying to win this war or what?

obviously not.  what a clusterfuck it's become

Quoted: Quoted: US Forces Capitulate To Prime Minister In Sadr City... Change "U.S. Forces" to...George Bush and you'll have it correct. Our forces could fix the problem if the chicken shit politicians would allow them to do so.   Of course by "US Forces" I mean the CIC and responsible leadership. And I concur with your assessment completely.

Heh.  I commented on the need to get rid of al sadyr, among other things here:

ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=509909

on 10/21, including this comment:

Oh... and kill Muqtada Al Sadyr. Zarqawi style. This week, next week, it doesn't matter. He represents a future iraq that would be a disgusting failure if we allow it to happen.

All you and some of your less articulate cronies could manage at the time was a load of name calling BS.  Guess we're awfully close on this issue.  One question.  Who's fault is this fucking mess?

The media?
The republican controlled senate and house?
Streisand?
Fast_Jimmy?
Jay  Z?
The intrepid GWB and his adventurous contemporaries Rumsfeld, Cheney, Tenant, and Bremer?

Quoted: Despite the rhetoric from John Kerry and Michael Moore, we are NOT an occupying force, and Iraq is a sovereign nation.  We are there at their behest and only operate within the parameters they allow. As for whether or not yielding to Sadr was good idea - only time will tell.  Personally, I think the government wants to take care of the die-Hard Al Qaeda types and worry about Sadr and such after things calm down a little.

the die hard al qaeda types comprise 10 percent or less of our opponents over there.  The sectarian militias and death squads are what's causing the bulk of deaths now.  Malaki is extremely tight with al-sadyr, and has no intention, apparently, of dealing with sectarian violence.  

Malaki appears to be a shiite partisan who's more than happy to look the other way as civil war reigns with the majority shiites in a position of strength.  We busted out a brutal strongman like hussein, yet we seem likely to let this duplicitous chickenshit ruin everything.

Great.

Quoted: We are still there because we are fighting a common enemy - funded, trainied, and adhering to the same life philosophy of the organization that attacked us on 11 Sep 2001. .

While that fits the definition of al qaeda, with which we ARE still engaged, foreign fighters have been acknowledged by the US military to make up less than 5 percent of active insurgents in iraq.  The bulk of the armed conflict is between shia, shiite, and US military.
To simply say that all or most combatants are al qaeda, as you imply, is a distortion, and unhelpful.

Cool.

The soverigen country of Iraq is makeing the calls now.

Time to go.

We won.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: US Forces Capitulate To Prime Minister In Sadr City... Change "U.S. Forces" to...George Bush and you'll have it correct. Our forces could fix the problem if the chicken shit politicians would allow them to do so.   Of course by "US Forces" I mean the CIC and responsible leadership. And I concur with your assessment completely. It is now "their country"... ...I'm not agreeing or disagreeing... But, it is now a country with an elected government. In that case why are we there at all? If they have things under control to the point they dictate where US forces may and may not be, then we should leave the entire country right now. We are either in charge or we are not. I don't feel the US forces should be "errand boys" of the Iraqi government anymore than I think they should be "errand boys" for the UN. It may mean I'm a "armchair expert" but I'm furious about the way this war is being conducted. They say that we are there to fight terrorists. Well Sadr City is FULL OF THEM. Al Sadr is their leader. Instead of killing him, instead of taking on the people of Sadr City who are our enemy, we have allowed them to order us to leave. It will be perceived as a great victory right up their with Hezbolla's triumph over Israel in Lebanon and the Somalia victory in 1993. This will encourage and embolden our enemies.

AMEN to that. A friend of mine is over there right now. Army infantry. He says there is no military solution . As soon as they leave the wire the IED's start going off. Local town by their base has been renamed Sadamn City by the locals. That should tell you something.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: US Forces Capitulate To Prime Minister In Sadr City... Change "U.S. Forces" to...George Bush and you'll have it correct. Our forces could fix the problem if the chicken shit politicians would allow them to do so.   Of course by "US Forces" I mean the CIC and responsible leadership. And I concur with your assessment completely. Heh.  I commented on the need to get rid of al sadyr, among other things here: ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=509909 on 10/21, including this comment: Oh... and kill Muqtada Al Sadyr. Zarqawi style. This week, next week, it doesn't matter. He represents a future iraq that would be a disgusting failure if we allow it to happen. All you and some of your less articulate cronies could manage at the time was a load of name calling BS.  Guess we're awfully close on this issue.  One question.  Who's fault is this fucking mess? The media? The republican controlled senate and house? Streisand? Fast_Jimmy? Jay  Z? The intrepid GWB and his adventurous contemporaries Rumsfeld, Cheney, Tenant, and Bremer?

I don't know what you're pissed about. I gave you a 6.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: US Forces Capitulate To Prime Minister In Sadr City... Change "U.S. Forces" to...George Bush and you'll have it correct. Our forces could fix the problem if the chicken shit politicians would allow them to do so.   Of course by "US Forces" I mean the CIC and responsible leadership. And I concur with your assessment completely. Heh.  I commented on the need to get rid of al sadyr, among other things here: ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=509909 on 10/21, including this comment: Oh... and kill Muqtada Al Sadyr. Zarqawi style. This week, next week, it doesn't matter. He represents a future iraq that would be a disgusting failure if we allow it to happen. All you and some of your less articulate cronies could manage at the time was a load of name calling BS.  Guess we're awfully close on this issue.  One question.  Who's fault is this fucking mess? The media? The republican controlled senate and house? Streisand? Fast_Jimmy? Jay  Z? The intrepid GWB and his adventurous contemporaries Rumsfeld, Cheney, Tenant, and Bremer? I don't know what you're pissed about. I gave you a 6.

Lol, I guess that is pretty charitable of you.

Quoted: I spent a year in Sadr City, March 04 through March 05, and it was a bitch. 2.5 million people in 5 square miles, and more than a few of them hate our guts. All the fighting and working we did to to eradicate the enemy and build infrastructure for the people and it for all intents and puposes get handed back to Muqtada right after we leave.... img.photobucket.com/albums/v421/hrd2thecore/wild023.jpg ETA picture of said shithole and lament for the umpteenth million time why the fuck didnt we kill al'Sadr's ass in 03 as soon as we realized what kind of shitbird he truly is.

Let me guess. 1st CAV. 1st BCT.  Were you at FOB Eagle?  

I only spent a few days there doing PSD work while my clients helped an Army CA team and I was amazed at what a shit hole that place was. Honestly, to call it a shit hole is an insult to other shit holes in the world.  It ranks somewhere in the rings of Hell in Dante's Inferno.

November 1, 2006 -- WE went to Iraq to overthrow a police state. Through a combination of stubbornness, naivete and noble intentions, we've replaced it with another police state - more violent, more corrupt and less accountable.
As an Army officer remarked to me, Saddam's starting to look good.

Our greatest setback in Iraq may be that country's undoing: It has proven impossible to develop an honest, nonpartisan police establishment anywhere in the country's Arab provinces. The police aren't feared by criminals, but by law-abiding citizens.

The secret police are back, in the form of death squads. And the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki looks perfectly happy with the situation.

American advisers risk their lives in the struggle to build Iraqi police units committed to doing their duty. We've equipped them, trained them and led from the front.

In gratitude, Iraq's police have ambushed our troops, fielded death squads less restrained than those under Saddam, stolen everything they could steal in preparation for a future civil war - and, apparently, funneled U.S.-provided arms to militias, insurgents and terrorists.

Our efforts to develop good cops have failed (garbage in, garbage out). We need to stop wasting our efforts. Shielded by government ministers and parliamentarians, the police are so out of control that there's no longer any hope of weeding out the bad guys. Instead, the bad guys are weeding out the good guys: Honest cops get killed. By other cops.

The situation's desperate. We need to revamp our strategy (to the extent that we have one). For all its shortcomings, the Iraqi army has been a far greater success than the police - whether we're speaking of cops on the beat or paramilitary commandos.

It's time to abandon the cops. Let the anti-American elements in the Maliki government have them. Don't continue to strengthen our enemies. Concentrate on developing and expanding the army.

Why? Here's where the truth gets still uglier. As dearly as we believe in democracy, Iraq's Arabs are proving that they're incapable of the political, social and moral maturity necessary to run an elected government.
Casting ballots alone doesn't make a democracy. The government has to function. And to protect all of its citizens.
In the coming months, we may find that the only hope of restoring order is a military government. It sounds repellent, but a U.S.-backed coup may be the only alternative to endless anarchy.

Arabs still can't govern themselves democratically. That's the appalling lesson of our Iraqi experiment. A military regime might be capable of establishing order and protecting the common people.
We've got to prepare the national military to take on the local police. And the insurgents. And the militias. And the foreign terrorists.

Yes, the Iraqi army may also disappoint us in the end. Increasingly, though, it looks like the last hope. The national government is a dysfunctional collection of religious and ethnic mafias. Ministers serve only their own armed factions. Maliki has outed himself as a puppet of Muqtada al-Sadr. (President Bush may love old Nouri, but Nouri don't love him back.)

The Kurds are quietly, efficiently building a model state in the north. But the Arabs are building nothing beyond militias and death squads.

This really isn't our failure. The failure is on the part of the Iraqis. They had this one great chance - bought with American and allied blood - to build a rule-of-law democracy in the Arab world. They appear determined to throw that chance away, preferring to wallow in old hatreds, vengeance, corruption and the tyranny of fear.


It's ironic that, having gone to Iraq to jump-start democracy in the region, we may end up backing a military coup to save the battered country. We're not there yet (and the thought is anathema in Washington - reality usually is). But we'd better hedge our bets. The only, faint chance we have to protect the average Iraqi is to expand the Iraqi army and promote a national ethos within its ranks.

We have only two rational choices. The first is to read the government the riot act, then give democracy one more year. If Iraq's leaders refuse to lead honorably and effectively - and get the police and militias under control - we should abandon Iraq (except for Kurdistan) by autumn 2007. The other option is to start preparing the best Iraqi military leaders to take charge of their country.

The alternative to a military government looks like continued mayhem - an endless slaughter of the innocents - along with more American casualties as we protect our enemies.
A year ago, one of our legislators asked for my assessment of Iraq's future. I told him that, while the various armed factions couldn't defeat us, the culture of corruption was the greatest threat to a future Iraqi government. That prediction has come to pass.

The state of the Iraqi police confirms it. They're not lawmen. They're murderers wearing uniforms we paid for. Our embedded advisers have to fear for their lives. Most are discouraged by Iraqi duplicity and partisanship. Our troops despise Iraq's police.

Again, we didn't destroy Iraq. We just gave Sunni and Shia Arabs a chance to destroy it. And they grabbed it.
What has become of our dreams for democracy when today's Iraqi police are worse than Saddam's and the most humane possibility for the country is a military government? The answer is that Arab civilization has revealed itself as a catastrophic failure.

Ralph Peters' latest book is "Never Quit The Fight."

NY Post Link

Quoted: Today we removed the roadblocks and LEFT. When are we ever gonna learn?

If we stay one week or one hundred years, the fundamentalist Muslims will take control of that region shortly after we're gone.

It's time to come home and prepare for N. Korea.

New place , same song , "Hearts and Minds". New words , same tune .

We didnt ask Germany OR Japan to like us .

Nothing will change willingly until the Moslim faith has a reformation .

Or gets reformed .

After "Sand War 1" All I heard from the damn Shites is how we left them , things coulda changed Blah and blagh .

Screw this , Let em go at each other ........

I still think its time to hand it all over to Iraqi forces. All of it.

They will NEVER be ready as long as we are there. They are like democrats. They wil NEVER be ready so IMHO its time to let them learn the hard way. Enough hand holding.

Quoted: The answer is that Arab civilization has revealed itself as a catastrophic failure.

Bingo! Welcome to islam.

Quoted: This really isn't our failure. The failure is on the part of the Iraqis. They had this one great chance - bought with American and allied blood - to build a rule-of-law democracy in the Arab world. They appear determined to throw that chance away, preferring to wallow in old hatreds, vengeance, corruption and the tyranny of fear.

That is possibly the truest thing I have ever read.

I hate to be one to say "I told you so" but I said this would happen 3 years ago when we began efforts to "liberate" Iraq.

You guys are all a bunch of defeatist, liberal communists!  I have it on good authority from a chain e-mail from a friend of my cousin's brother in law's nephew's ex-girlfriend's mom's half brother that the terrorists are only 2 missions away from total defeat.


Just to play a little devil's advocate, wasn't Iraq a sovreign nation before we invaded?  Wasn't the whole justification for invading then based on our belief that Iraq posed a threat to the United States of America?  So do they pose a threat to us any longer?  If not, why are we still there?  Last I checked, it wasn't the responsibility of the USA to spread truth, justice, and the American way.

How much does anyone want to bet that the war is going to be magically declared "won" sometime between the 06 elections and the 08 elections?

Quoted: This really isn't our failure. The failure is on the part of the Iraqis. They had this one great chance - bought with American and allied blood - to build a rule-of-law democracy in the Arab world. They appear determined to throw that chance away, preferring to wallow in old hatreds, vengeance, corruption and the tyranny of fear.

time will tell if their sacrifices for the Iraqi people will payoff.

sad to say, it does not look good from over here right now.

Quoted: You guys are all a bunch of defeatist, liberal communists!  I have it on good authority from a chain e-mail from a friend of my cousin's brother in law's nephew's ex-girlfriend's mom's half brother that the terrorists are only 2 missions away from total defeat. Just to play a little devil's advocate, wasn't Iraq a sovreign nation before we invaded?  Wasn't the whole justification for invading then based on our belief that Iraq posed a threat to the United States of America?  So do they pose a threat to us any longer?  If not, why are we still there?  Last I checked, it wasn't the responsibility of the USA to spread truth, justice, and the American way. How much does anyone want to bet that the war is going to be magically declared "won" sometime between the 06 elections and the 08 elections?

Because we decided to make the Middle East a "happy place", you know...like EuroDisney.

The civilian leadership of the United States fails the military again.  Don't worry, I'm sure someone will be spouting GWB's praise soon enough.

Quoted: Quoted: This really isn't our failure. The failure is on the part of the Iraqis. They had this one great chance - bought with American and allied blood - to build a rule-of-law democracy in the Arab world. They appear determined to throw that chance away, preferring to wallow in old hatreds, vengeance, corruption and the tyranny of fear. That is possibly the truest thing I have ever read. I hate to be one to say "I told you so" but I said this would happen 3 years ago when we began efforts to "liberate" Iraq.

I second this.  However, I believe GWB also had a chance, and threw it away also.  Post 09/11, America was clearly ready to do whatever it takes to keep our country safe from certain dangers.  Preventing WMD's IS a valid justification for war, preemptive strikes, whatever it takes, as long as we maintain a credible level of proof and demonstrable danger.
Quite possibly, we'll all learn the wrong lesson from Iraq... that no intervention is ever justified or necessary.  That seems to be the consensus among democrats.

I've said it before, but we're trying to civilize stone age retards that haven't evolved a bit since the dawn of time and now we're going to go in there, take out their leader and make them productive world citizens. I don't think so and never did. Too bad, but if we don't do something decisive (cut and run or nuke it from orbit) then we will be stuck in that... whats that word that was buzzing around a while back???? Oh yeah. Quagmire. And then what. Or maybe we're already in it.

Quoted: I've said it before, but we're trying to civilize stone age retards that haven't evolved a bit since the dawn of time and now we're going to go in there, take out their leader and make them productive world citizens. I don't think so and never did. Too bad, but if we don't do something decisive (cut and run or nuke it from orbit) then we will be stuck in that... whats that word that was buzzing around a while back???? Oh yeah. Quagmire. And then what. Or maybe we're already in it.

What is a world citizen, praytell?

Quoted: ETA picture of said shithole and lament for the umpteenth million time why the fuck didnt we kill al'Sadr's ass in 03 as soon as we realized what kind of shitbird he truly is.

Because he is a sh*tbird with some political clout, and the Iraqi government didn't really WANT him to be taken out.

The lack of progress in Iraq isn't because guys like you didn't do your jobs. It is because there are a bunch of clowns in Iraq who are trying to feather their own nests in the hope that we will get frustrated and just go home.

Hopefully our leadership will show better judgement than that.