[quote]100meters wrote:
…
You’re deliberately missing the point of course that the “success” is that sunnis in anbar are working with us, but that’s a strategic decision on the sunnis part that was nothing to do with the surge.
[/quote]
Dumbass. That is all part of the surge strategy to reach out to certain militias that have been opposing US occupation but have not been murdering civilians.
They didn’t suddenly “decide” to work with the US at the same time the surge began.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
The US is doing much/most of the fighting. Working with reasonable militia instead of against them is part of Petraeus’ plan. Your effort to minimize our success is ludicrous.
I’m not minimizing anything. I’m giving you the analysis which every independent journalist and analyst not-associated-with-the-Pentagon is gonna tell you. It’s not part f some conspiracy to undermine Petraeus’ efforts. It’s merely the truth as seen without the “All hail Bush” distorting lens.[/quote]
Did you read the link?
[quote]lixy wrote:
They call the Anbar Awakening for a reason. It’s got nothing to do with the level of US troops whatsover. It’s the Sunni tribes banding together to take control of their country.
Now, the US is giving out weapons to the very same people who were shooting at them earlier.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/14/1421252
The US is not leaving Iraq.[/quote]
Well, if the Iraqis can’t/won’t govern themselves without a wicked dictator in charge, I guess we have to do it. Besides, Iraq is a good central launch point for the war with the Iranians, and for our (the West) eventual conquest of the Middle East.
Always remember: we WILL have that oil.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Ha! I read the title of the thread and thought it was about a Biotest product! LOL. [/quote]
Ha! Mine is better — I read ‘Ann Arbor’ when I first saw ‘Anbar’. That’s what happens when you’re not quite awake yet. 
[quote]100meters wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
100meters wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
There are less bad people in Anbar to kill. Yay.
Yes, it looks like sunni and shia are finally coming togeather and at long last we’ll have political progress…Oh, wait that’s not happening and that was the point of the surge. Also this progress began before the surge and has factually little to with the surge:
"More striking was the emerging shift in Anbar; al-Qaeda and Sunni insurgents had grown so dominant in the western province that military intelligence had all but given up on the area months earlier. Bush benefited from good timing. As he introduced his new strategy, Marine commanders had already made common cause with local Sunni tribal leaders who had broken with the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq, also called AQI.
Why the sheiks turned remains a point of debate, but it seems clear that the tribes resented al-Qaeda’s efforts to ban smoking and marry local women to build ties to the region. “Marrying women to strangers, let alone foreigners, is just not done,” Australian Lt. Col. David Kilcullen, a Petraeus adviser, wrote in an essay.
The sheik who forged the alliance with the Americans, Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi, traced the decision to fight al-Qaeda to Sept. 14, 2006, long before the new Bush strategy, but the president’s plan dispatched another 4,000 U.S. troops to Anbar to exploit the situation. As security improved, the White House eagerly took credit"
And of course any evidence that the surge isn’t working only means that IT MUST BE WORKING in wingnuttia, fortunatey only a small fringe of the population believes this, unfortunately they seem to be the mainstream here?
Spin baby! Spin!!!
Factually, this thread is spin (Hint: the title says “surge working in Anbar”). It’s not unsimilar to other spun threads like “winning in Iraq” etc. which in themselves are an extension of the ol’ “turning the corner in Iraq” type threads usually started by the far-far-far-right fringe like JeffR and Headhunter.[/quote]
Sorry 100m, but this is more spin. The dems, and the left in general, are 100% invested in US failure in Iraq as evidenced by their total inability to recognize any success in Iraq. The dems want to take the easy road out of Iraq and blame any consequential atrocities that will follow, on the previous administration. The fastest way to end a war, is to lose it. Apparently that’s what the dems want though.
As Zap has stated, the “surge” is a comprehensive plan that encompasses more than just what the US military specific, is doing. Would they have been so bold as to make these moves without a larger commitment by US forces?
The dems would be more attractive as a party if they would focus more on their own version of success in Iraq, rather than preaching constantly the doom and gloom of failure and impossibility. To listen to democratic leadership, you’d think that they don’t think that US forces are even capable of success there.
I have more faith in the US military than that.
I didn’t know Biotest delivered to Iraq…
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
100meters wrote:
You’re deliberately missing the point of course that the “success” is that sunnis in anbar are working with us, but that’s a strategic decision on the sunnis part that was nothing to do with the surge.
Are the sunnis making “strategic decisions” in a vacuum? How on earth could their decisions have nothing to do with the surge? The surge was a long time in coming. The sunnis simply saw that their future law with american troops and some sort of rough federalism - and not with the bloody chaos and warfare of al qaeda/insurgents. [/quote]
If it happened well before the surge and has nothing to do with the surge, then there’s no need to credit the surge. The thread could just say “some good things happening in Anbar”, but again the sunni leaders in Anbar aren’t about to start reconciling with the Shia majority.
More interesting to discuss would be the underlying reason for arming and paying sunnis in a shia majority region. An area that also seems to be on top of a boatload area marked for developement by oil companies.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070920/wl_nm/iraq_dc_21
Iraq violence lowest since '06 mosque attack: U.S. By Paul Tait
2 hours, 28 minutes ago
Violence in Iraq has fallen to its lowest level since before a 2006 mosque attack which unleashed the deadliest phase of the Iraq war, the deputy commander of U.S. forces in Iraq said on Thursday.
Lieutenant-General Raymond Odierno said attacks in Baghdad had also fallen by half since January, just before Washington began pouring 30,000 extra troops into Iraq to try to drag the nation back from the brink of sectarian civil war.
“There are still way too many civilian casualties inside of Baghdad and Iraq,” Odierno said, after telling a news conference the number of sectarian killings in the capital had fallen from an average of about 32 a day to 12 a day this year.
U.S. forces launched a crackdown in Baghdad in February that spread to other provinces, targeting Sunni Islamist al Qaeda and other Sunni Arab insurgents as well as Shi’ite militias.
“Al Qaeda in Iraq is increasingly being pushed out of Baghdad and the surrounding areas. They are now seeking refuge elsewhere in the country and even fleeing Iraq,” Odierno said.
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki this month said his government had averted civil war and that levels of violence in Baghdad and surrounding areas had fallen 75 percent this year.
And on Thursday, President George W. Bush defended plans to withdraw about 20,000 U.S. troops by July, saying: “Progress will yield fewer troops.”
Al Qaeda, however, has vowed to step up attacks during the holy Muslim month of Ramadan.
Odierno said there had been no sign of any reprisal attacks so far since a separate Baghdad shooting on Sunday involving U.S. security firm Blackwater in which 11 people were killed.
U.S. and Iraqi officials have launched a joint inquiry into the incident, with Maliki’s government announcing it had halted the work of Blackwater, which guards U.S. embassy officials, and would review all local and foreign security firms.
U.S. embassy spokeswoman Mirembe Nantongo said Blackwater was still contracted to the State Department but had not done any work since a ban on U.S. diplomatic convoys leaving Baghdad’s heavily fortified Green Zone was imposed on Tuesday.
In Iraq’s north, the U.S. military said it had arrested an Iranian man it accused of being a member of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards Quds force who had smuggled deadly roadside bombs into Iraq.
Iran said the man, detained during an early-morning raid on a hotel in Sulaimaniya in autonomous Kurdistan, was a businessman. Kurdistan and Iraqi government officials said he was a member of a trade delegation.
Old foes Tehran and Washington accuse each other of being responsible for Iraq’s violence.
DEADLIEST PHASE
The bombing of the golden-domed al-Askari mosque, one of Iraq’s four holiest Shi’ite shrines, in mainly Sunni Arab Samarra in February 2006 sparked the deadliest phase of violence since the U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein in 2003.
Sectarian violence had been on the rise, but the bombing changed the focus from a Sunni Arab insurgency against U.S. and Iraqi forces into a spate of revenge sectarian attacks in which tens of thousands of Iraqis died and many more fled their homes.
Odierno said U.S. and Iraqi forces had been keeping al Qaeda and other militant groups “off balance” by targeting their leadership as they push out of large bases into smaller combat outposts and joint command centers.
He said 60 percent more weapons caches had been discovered in the first nine months of 2007 than in all of 2006, leading to a decrease in attacks by improvised explosive devices.
The security crackdown was seen by Washington as an attempt to buy time for Iraq’s fractured government to reach benchmarks aimed at reconciling majority Shi’ites and minority Sunni Arabs.
Maliki’s Shi’ite-led coalition has been paralyzed by infighting and the withdrawal of about a dozen ministers from cabinet, but a senior lawmaker said there were no plans for a no-confidence vote against Maliki’s 16-month-old administration.
Deputy speaker Khaled al-Attiya also told Reuters that much-delayed legislation on a crucial oil law that will regulate how wealth from the world’s third-largest oil reserves will be shared would be debated in parliament in October.
[/quote]
More Than 1,800 Iraqis Killed in August
Civilian Deaths in Iraq Rise Slightly in August, With More Than 1,800 Killed
A huge suicide attack in northern Iraq caused civilian deaths to rise slightly in August despite security gains elsewhere, making it the second deadliest month for Iraqis since the U.S. troop buildup began, figures compiled by The Associated Press showed Saturday.
At least 1,809 civilians were killed, compared to 1,760 in July, based on figures compiled from official Iraqi reports
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3549367
Of course it doesn’t matter if deaths go up, because in wingnuttia this is evidence that the surge is clearly working. While the mainstream understands that it might mean the surge isn’t working—those on the far-far-far-far right can’t reconcile what they’re told with what is happening.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Then why are they not still shooting at the Americans?
Because now they’re collecting weapons paid for by your tax-money. It won’t last forever though…
The Sunni tribes see that peace with America is a better option than peace with Al-Qaeda.
You found that on your own genius?
[/quote]
Call me genius? These Sunni tribal leaders appear smarter than you.
“It won’t last forever though”
That’s because their untrustworthy backstabbers. True to form.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Judging by the enormous populous support behind Al-Sadr, I’ll say that you’re actively undermining democracy there.[/quote]
Then why are the Shia in charge of the government? Just because Al-Sadr himself is not in charge? Was he a candidate? His men got representation in the government and chose to withdraw. And how would Al-Sadr ruling Iraq possibly be a good thing for the Sunni and Kurd minority living there?
We’re not undermining democracy, hell without us, there’d be no democracy.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
…
You’re deliberately missing the point of course that the “success” is that sunnis in anbar are working with us, but that’s a strategic decision on the sunnis part that was nothing to do with the surge.
Dumbass. That is all part of the surge strategy to reach out to certain militias that have been opposing US occupation but have not been murdering civilians.
[/quote]
First off, the surge isn’t a strategy, it’s a force enlargement with tactical changes. Big difference.
Secondly, the major tactical difference in the surge was moving U.S. troops out of FOBs and into small bases among the Iraqi people, especially in urban areas. I can check the old AEI surge Powerpoint from Kagan and co., but I’m pretty sure there was no special note made to negotiate with militias.
In fact, David Kilcullen, the Australian colonel who was/is a major counterinsurgency advisor to General Petraeus in Iraq, admitted that the tribal revolt against Al Qaeda in Anbar Province was a surprise to high-level U.S. commanders.
[quote]
They didn’t suddenly “decide” to work with the US at the same time the surge began.[/quote]
You’re absolutely right. The Anbar Awakening predates the surge by several months; it began in November. So to claim the surge is responsible for pacifying Anbar is ludicrous.
Now, the extra 4,000 or so troops available in Anbar as a result of the surge have almost certainly helped, but the political accomodation made with Sunni tribes predates the surge. So to give credit to the surge for one of the few areas of the country where violence is sharply down doesn’t make much sense.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Then why are they not still shooting at the Americans?
Because now they’re collecting weapons paid for by your tax-money. It won’t last forever though…
The Sunni tribes see that peace with America is a better option than peace with Al-Qaeda.
You found that on your own genius?
Call me genius? These Sunni tribal leaders appear smarter than you.
“It won’t last forever though”
That’s because their untrustworthy backstabbers. True to form.[/quote]
I think it’s because they’re getting paid to not kill us, if al qaeda came up with the dough it could be easily reversed.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
…
You’re deliberately missing the point of course that the “success” is that sunnis in anbar are working with us, but that’s a strategic decision on the sunnis part that was nothing to do with the surge.
Dumbass. That is all part of the surge strategy to reach out to certain militias that have been opposing US occupation but have not been murdering civilians.
First off, the surge isn’t a strategy, it’s a force enlargement with tactical changes. Big difference.
[/quote]
The surge is certainly a new strategy with force enlargement as one part. We are working with tribal militias we fought in the past. It is not simply more troops. There are big changes in the way we are doing things.
We targeting that area with extra troops to work with the tribal militias to fight AQ. They would not be successful w/o US firepower.
[quote]
Now, the extra 4,000 or so troops available in Anbar as a result of the surge have almost certainly helped, but the political accomodation made with Sunni tribes predates the surge. So to give credit to the surge for one of the few areas of the country where violence is sharply down doesn’t make much sense.[/quote]
You seem to think our military is stumbling around without a clue or plan. They saw the opportunity and they took it.
W/o American troops Anbar would still be in horrible shape.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Then why are they not still shooting at the Americans?
Because now they’re collecting weapons paid for by your tax-money. It won’t last forever though…
The Sunni tribes see that peace with America is a better option than peace with Al-Qaeda.
You found that on your own genius?
Call me genius? These Sunni tribal leaders appear smarter than you.
“It won’t last forever though”
That’s because their untrustworthy backstabbers. True to form.
I think it’s because they’re getting paid to not kill us, if al qaeda came up with the dough it could be easily reversed.[/quote]
You are totally wrong. AQ is done in that area. They have made enemies of the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people want us to help them kick AQ out and we are doing so.
AQ and OBL had tremendous support before and after 9/11 throughout the Arab world. That support is diminishing as the Arab world learns the truth.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Then why are they not still shooting at the Americans?
Because now they’re collecting weapons paid for by your tax-money. It won’t last forever though…
The Sunni tribes see that peace with America is a better option than peace with Al-Qaeda.
You found that on your own genius?
Call me genius? These Sunni tribal leaders appear smarter than you.
“It won’t last forever though”
That’s because their untrustworthy backstabbers. True to form.
I think it’s because they’re getting paid to not kill us, if al qaeda came up with the dough it could be easily reversed.
You are totally wrong. AQ is done in that area. They have made enemies of the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people want us to help them kick AQ out and we are doing so.
AQ and OBL had tremendous support before and after 9/11 throughout the Arab world. That support is diminishing as the Arab world learns the truth.
[/quote]
And that truth is? Since the vast majority of attacks aren’t AQI and are simply Sunni Insurgents, I wonder what that truth may be?
[quote]100meters wrote:
And that truth is? Since the vast majority of attacks aren’t AQI and are simply Sunni Insurgents, I wonder what that truth may be?[/quote]
How can you be sure who is attacking us? How can you differentiate between Sunni insurgents and AQ? They are not wearing uniforms, are they? Explain your reasoning here?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
100meters wrote:
And that truth is? Since the vast majority of attacks aren’t AQI and are simply Sunni Insurgents, I wonder what that truth may be?
How can you be sure who is attacking us? How can you differentiate between Sunni insurgents and AQ? They are not wearing uniforms, are they? Explain your reasoning here?[/quote]
The truth is the surge is clearly working in Anbar.
The truth is 100meters and his fellow Democrats have bet their political future on failure and disaster in Iraq.
It makes honest discussion with him impossible.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
100meters wrote:
And that truth is? Since the vast majority of attacks aren’t AQI and are simply Sunni Insurgents, I wonder what that truth may be?
How can you be sure who is attacking us? How can you differentiate between Sunni insurgents and AQ? They are not wearing uniforms, are they? Explain your reasoning here?
The truth is the surge is clearly working in Anbar.
The truth is 100meters and his fellow Democrats have bet their political future on failure and disaster in Iraq.
It makes honest discussion with him impossible.[/quote]
Again, the surge HAS NOTHING TO DO with Anbar, damn you’re thick. Sunni’s made a tactical decision to join with us (way BEFORE the surge) because they were unhappy with AQI overreaching, they are still insurgents and still hellbent on our withdrawal.
Factually:
1% of sunni have confidence in us troops
1% support our occupation
95% think they are less secure because of us troops
93% support attacks on troops
72% want immediate withdrawal.
And this is your shining beacon while politically iraq has regressed which only accentuates the failure of the surge. (on top of the increased deaths)
Meanwhile you joke with “honest discussion”, but you don’t even know what you’re talking about, jeebus.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
100meters wrote:
And that truth is? Since the vast majority of attacks aren’t AQI and are simply Sunni Insurgents, I wonder what that truth may be?
How can you be sure who is attacking us? How can you differentiate between Sunni insurgents and AQ? They are not wearing uniforms, are they? Explain your reasoning here?
The truth is the surge is clearly working in Anbar.
The truth is 100meters and his fellow Democrats have bet their political future on failure and disaster in Iraq.
It makes honest discussion with him impossible.
Again, the surge HAS NOTHING TO DO with Anbar, damn you’re thick. Sunni’s made a tactical decision to join with us (way BEFORE the surge) because they were unhappy with AQI overreaching, they are still insurgents and still hellbent on our withdrawal.
Factually:
1% of sunni have confidence in us troops
1% support our occupation
95% think they are less secure because of us troops
93% support attacks on troops
72% want immediate withdrawal.
And this is your shining beacon while politically iraq has regressed which only accentuates the failure of the surge. (on top of the increased deaths)
Meanwhile you joke with “honest discussion”, but you don’t even know what you’re talking about, jeebus.[/quote]
Yet in Anbar Americans can walk without body armor and pre surge it was unthinkable.
You probably think the Soviet Union collapsed on its own.
Go get a response to that from the Daily Kos.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
100meters wrote:
And that truth is? Since the vast majority of attacks aren’t AQI and are simply Sunni Insurgents, I wonder what that truth may be?
How can you be sure who is attacking us? How can you differentiate between Sunni insurgents and AQ? They are not wearing uniforms, are they? Explain your reasoning here?[/quote]
http://www.smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/07/al-qaeda-in-iraq-heroes-boogey/
Plenty of journalists and bloggers have attacked him, not all of them neo-con flacks, but I’ll take his resume and experience in Iraq over all of theirs: