Why the surge will never work in Iraq!

pandabear

Well-Known Member
Its Takes a real man to admit when he was wrong.



Iraq forces could control all provinces this year: U.S.

Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:36pm EST


By David Morgan






WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iraq's army and police could be ready to take over security in all 18 provinces by the end of this year as the U.S. military moves toward a less prominent role in the country, U.S. officials said on Thursday.
"We look at it every month. We make recommendations. I think that if we continue along the path we're on now, we'll be able to do that by the end of 2008," Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, the No. 2 commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, said when asked when Iraqi forces could take the lead in all provinces.
He said that a joint operation under way led by Iraqi troops and supported by U.S. troops against al Qaeda militants in the northern city of Mosul was a model for the future.
"That's how I see our role frankly in the future here," he told Pentagon reporters via videolink from Baghdad.
Iraqi security forces are now in control of nine provinces after assuming control of Iraqi's southern oil hub, Basra, in December. Iraqi forces are also expected to take control in Anbar province, a one-time insurgent stronghold, as early as March.
The ability of Iraqi forces to take the lead in security operations is vital to President George W. Bush's plan to withdraw 20,000 U.S. troops by the middle of this year.
The troops were sent to Iraq last year in a bid to quell sectarian violence in a war now in its sixth year. With U.S. troop levels up to about 155,000 now, violence levels have since dropped sharply.
"All the evidence available to me now suggests we will be able to complete the drawdown," Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters separately.
"(It) remains my hope that the pace of the drawdowns in the second half of the year will be what it was in the first half of the year," he said.
Lt. Gen. James Dubik, commander of security transition in Iraq, told the U.S. House of Representatives Armed Services Committee on Thursday that the number of Iraqi security forces, or ISF, could exceed 580,000 by the end of the year, up from the current 500,000.
But he also expressed caution about their abilities.
"Force structure and capability still lack a certain maturity. The ISF have not yet achieved self reliance in all area of logistics, maintenance and life support," he told the panel.
Odierno said he was confident the withdrawal of the five brigades will occur despite expectations for an upswing in insurgent attacks as militants respond to a new joint offensive known as Operation Phantom Phoenix.
The operation has killed or captured 92 "high-value individuals, according to the U.S. military.
"While we may see a short-term increase in violence in response to our operations in the weeks ahead, I expect Phantom Phoenix to contribute significantly to the population's security," Odierno said.
Gates' hopes for further reductions in U.S. forces this year will depend on a March assessment by the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus.
"To predict now whether we can go lower or not is difficult and I would not want to make that prediction right now," Odierno said.
But Gates said the U.S. mission in Iraq has begun its planned transition to a more supportive role that would focus on border security and combating al Qaeda in Iraq. "That's ultimately where we are headed, and we have begun that process of transition," he said.

God bless our soldiers sailers and Marines
 

medicineman

New Member
Its Takes a real man to admit when he was wrong.



Iraq forces could control all provinces this year: U.S.

Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:36pm EST


By David Morgan






WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iraq's army and police could be ready to take over security in all 18 provinces by the end of this year as the U.S. military moves toward a less prominent role in the country, U.S. officials said on Thursday.
"We look at it every month. We make recommendations. I think that if we continue along the path we're on now, we'll be able to do that by the end of 2008," Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, the No. 2 commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, said when asked when Iraqi forces could take the lead in all provinces.
He said that a joint operation under way led by Iraqi troops and supported by U.S. troops against al Qaeda militants in the northern city of Mosul was a model for the future.
"That's how I see our role frankly in the future here," he told Pentagon reporters via videolink from Baghdad.
Iraqi security forces are now in control of nine provinces after assuming control of Iraqi's southern oil hub, Basra, in December. Iraqi forces are also expected to take control in Anbar province, a one-time insurgent stronghold, as early as March.
The ability of Iraqi forces to take the lead in security operations is vital to President George W. Bush's plan to withdraw 20,000 U.S. troops by the middle of this year.
The troops were sent to Iraq last year in a bid to quell sectarian violence in a war now in its sixth year. With U.S. troop levels up to about 155,000 now, violence levels have since dropped sharply.
"All the evidence available to me now suggests we will be able to complete the drawdown," Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters separately.
"(It) remains my hope that the pace of the drawdowns in the second half of the year will be what it was in the first half of the year," he said.
Lt. Gen. James Dubik, commander of security transition in Iraq, told the U.S. House of Representatives Armed Services Committee on Thursday that the number of Iraqi security forces, or ISF, could exceed 580,000 by the end of the year, up from the current 500,000.
But he also expressed caution about their abilities.
"Force structure and capability still lack a certain maturity. The ISF have not yet achieved self reliance in all area of logistics, maintenance and life support," he told the panel.
Odierno said he was confident the withdrawal of the five brigades will occur despite expectations for an upswing in insurgent attacks as militants respond to a new joint offensive known as Operation Phantom Phoenix.
The operation has killed or captured 92 "high-value individuals, according to the U.S. military.
"While we may see a short-term increase in violence in response to our operations in the weeks ahead, I expect Phantom Phoenix to contribute significantly to the population's security," Odierno said.
Gates' hopes for further reductions in U.S. forces this year will depend on a March assessment by the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus.
"To predict now whether we can go lower or not is difficult and I would not want to make that prediction right now," Odierno said.
But Gates said the U.S. mission in Iraq has begun its planned transition to a more supportive role that would focus on border security and combating al Qaeda in Iraq. "That's ultimately where we are headed, and we have begun that process of transition," he said.

God bless our soldiers sailers and Marines
So when you are found to be wrong, you'll admit it then,~LOL~, I'll bet not.
 

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
The dramatic security gains have provided room for political and economic successes. “You name it, it is happening in Iraq,” Morrell said. “Do you want to talk about political gains? We've had basically all the major benchmark legislation passed.”

The Sunni bloc has returned to the government, 10 of 18 Iraqi provinces are under local control, and Najaf International Airport has reopened. “You see a $300 million luxury hotel opening up in the Green Zone [and] $50 million in refurbishment of the airport road,” Morrell said. “There's economic investment, and there's political progress. There's increased security. All those things are undeniable, and they are attributable to the fact that we plussed up forces in there.”

There were, of course, other factors at work in the security improvement, Morrell said, but the surge and the change in U.S. counterinsurgency strategy made all else possible. The “Anbar Awakening” that allied formerly insurgent Sunni Muslims with the coalition and influential Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr’s cease-fire were other factors, he said, but he noted they didn’t happen independently of other events.
Multi-National Force - Iraq - Surge Successful By Any Measure, Pentagon Official Says
 

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
Look at who is telling us about this, the pentagon. Do you think maybe they are a bit biased? That's like a fox in the hen house going cluck click cluck.
I don't see anything from you disputing it. Pentagon briefings were perfectly acceptable when we were sucking wind.

What is different now? Nothing.

You may disparage the source all day long, but can you deny the points made?
 

Spitzered

Well-Known Member
It depends what a person expects from it. If its a decrease in violence and a chance for the IP and IA to organize and take control of the situation, then its working. But to people who doesn't want to believe will just change the expectations. The left will believe that the Military is lying to us about anything good but will eat up any bad news. People will only believe what they already believe, and their is no changing their mind. Not going to be objective about it at all. If one Iraqi accused another of being an insurgent their has to be 2 different sources before the military acts.

The reduction of violence on US bases and civilian population is dramatic. Long term we shall have to see how the IA and IP can take advantage of the time.

Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says - January 26, 2006 - The New York Sun
He is a lying bastard huh? (Its not a youtube video, that would make all the difference in the world). I don't know if its true or not.

New Reports on U.S. Planting WMDs in Iraq
Now there is the truth huh? Its all what you want to believe.

REPORT ON THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY'S PREWAR INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENTS ON IRAQ
Lying bastards huh?

beSpacific: National Intelligence Estimate - Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities
Now that the truth huh?

Depends if they say what you want to hear.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
What pathetic defeatism.
Why even bother to give the Middle East a chance at some form of democracy?
Negativity is destructive to the human spirit.


Here is an excellent piece which, IMO nails it right down.




[FONT=times new roman,times]Why do so many Democrats cling so tenaciously to hopelessness, failure and despair in Iraq, even in the face of important recent successes? [/FONT]


[FONT=times new roman,times]The reason for this defeatism among Democrats lies beneath mere power politics, electioneering or disdain for President Bush. The real source of defeatism is rooted deep within the liberal mind. [/FONT]


[FONT=times new roman,times]Defeatist Democrats oppose the war in Iraq, not so much because they fear failure, but because they believe failure is inevitable. They believe the Bush Administration's goal of helping Iraq establish a democratic government is a fool's errand. They believe that the Western values on which democratic government is based -- and the Judeo-Christian truths from which those Western values are derived -- are not valid for Iraqis.[/FONT]

................

[FONT=times new roman,times]So things are worse than they seem. While our soldiers are fighting on the battlefield, the leadership of the Democratic Party is deconstructing the Western values for which they fight.[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]Listen closely to Osama bin Laden's recorded monologues, and you will detect at least some subtle similarities to the diatribes of the Democratic Congressional leadership. This is not a coincidence, for the core beliefs that Judeo-Christian truths and Western values are passé, and that Western civilization is therefore a sham, are to some degree shared by both camps. This leads to Democratic anti-war rhetoric that strikes many average Americans as unpatriotic.

But in fairness, the Democrats are not unpatriotic. They love America. They simply define America differently than most Americans. Their America is a very small place. They do not believe that America's greatness is found in the truth of its founding principles, but in their own enlightened leadership, and in a deconstructed brand of "freedom" that more and more resembles license.
[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]They do not believe our founding truths are necessarily true at all. No wonder they want to cut and run.[/FONT]



Full article here:
American Thinker: Do Democrats Really Want Us to Fail in Iraq?
what an eloquent defense of the iraq war for a rawn pawl fanboi!

it's especially puzzling since you now cry like a little baby every time obama threatens to bomb syria or libya without putting boots on the ground.

gee, i wonder what changed about the president for your views to have taken such a drastic turn like this?

:lol:

(hint: i don't actually wonder, it's pretty obvious that you're just a racist with a thesaurus).
 

desert dude

Well-Known Member
what an eloquent defense of the iraq war for a rawn pawl fanboi!

it's especially puzzling since you now cry like a little baby every time obama threatens to bomb syria or libya without putting boots on the ground.

gee, i wonder what changed about the president for your views to have taken such a drastic turn like this?

:lol:

(hint: i don't actually wonder, it's pretty obvious that you're just a racist with a thesaurus).
Since you are dredging up old news: ZIMMERMAN!!!
 

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
what an eloquent defense of the iraq war for a rawn pawl fanboi!

it's especially puzzling since you now cry like a little baby every time obama threatens to bomb syria or libya without putting boots on the ground.

gee, i wonder what changed about the president for your views to have taken such a drastic turn like this?

:lol:

(hint: i don't actually wonder, it's pretty obvious that you're just a racist with a thesaurus).
It's almost as puzzling as the last 5+ years of hypocritical, deafening silence from the hoards of dingbats and media pundits that vehemently and continuously protested the war when Buuuuuuush was Prez.

gee, i wonder what changed about the president for your views to have taken such a drastic turn like this?

(hint: i don't actually wonder, it's pretty obvious that you're just a racist without a thesaurus and a thrill up your leg).
 

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
Since you are dredging up old news: ZIMMERMAN!!!
You're a little behind the times. It's now "The artist formerly known as Zimmerman". After all, he is a superhero that lifts burning vans off families. God bless Sanford and the men she propagates.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
It's almost as puzzling as the last 5+ years of hypocritical, deafening silence from the hoards of dingbats and media pundits that vehemently and continuously protested the war when Buuuuuuush was Prez.

gee, i wonder what changed about the president for your views to have taken such a drastic turn like this?

(hint: i don't actually wonder, it's pretty obvious that you're just a racist without a thesaurus and a thrill up your leg).
are you trying to compare the no-boots-on-the-ground, no-american-deaths, internationally supported action in libya to the unilateral, boots on the ground, unnecessary campaign in iraq which cost us 4000+ american lives, tens of thousands returning without body parts, and thousands more with mental wounds which we can not see?

because if you are trying to compare those two war acts, then you are a fucking retard. if you're not trying to compare those, then i must have just misread and mistook your implications somehow.
 
Top