Monday, February 26, 2007
McClatchy: Bush Surge Has Failed So Far
The stats don't lie:
Just wait until Sadr takes the handcuffs off his militiamen. The violence will be back to exactly what is was before the surge. Or it will be even worse.
You know why?
Because 21,500 additional troops isn't enough to do anything more than make it look like Bush is doing something to bring this war to a successful conclusion.
That's why.
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Nearly two weeks into the newest Baghdad security plan, the daily count of murder victims dumped on the city's streets has declined significantly, a likely sign that Shiite Muslim militia groups aligned with the Iraqi government have reined in their members or sent them out of the capital.
But deaths from bombings and mortar attacks, after an initial decline, have returned to the levels of the previous two months, suggesting that the plan's initial measures have had little impact on the Sunni insurgent groups believed to be responsible for most of that violence.
U.S. and Iraqi officials have released only limited information about what steps they've taken to secure the city since the plan's official kickoff on Feb. 15. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told President Bush last week that the plan, dubbed Operation Enforcing the Law, so far had been a "dazzling success." U.S. officials have been more cautious, saying that it may be months before the plan can be labeled a success or a failure.
Statistics compiled from official daily reports of the Interior Ministry and other Iraqi government sources, as well as interviews in 20 Baghdad neighborhoods about the plan's initial measures, however, show that some early judgments are possible about the plan's effectiveness. With most members of Congress expressing skepticism about the plan's prospects for success, such information could prove useful in the debate over Bush's plan to commit a total of 17,500 additional troops to the plan in the coming months.
From Dec. 1, 2006, through Feb. 14, the number of people killed in public places from violent attacks averaged 14.8 a day. From Feb. 15 through Monday, the number declined, but just barely, to 13.8. Car bombs were up slightly, from an average of 1.2 a day to 1.6, while roadside bombs were identical at 1 per day.
Injuries, on average, rose from 40.4 a day to 52.8 since the start of the plan, while bodies dumped by death squads declined from 22.8 a day to 14.6.
...
The decline in dumped bodies is largely thought to be the result of anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's decision to send his Mahdi Army forces underground or out of the city. Sadr hasn't been seen in a month, and American officials have said he's in Iran.
But a Sadr statement released over the weekend openly criticized the plan's inability so far to stop the car bombings, and it raised, at least implicitly, the threat that Shiite militias would become active again to prevent such attacks.
"Here we are watching car bombs continue to explode to harvest thousands of innocent lives from our beloved people in the middle of a security plan controlled by an occupier," news accounts quoted the statements as saying.
Just wait until Sadr takes the handcuffs off his militiamen. The violence will be back to exactly what is was before the surge. Or it will be even worse.
You know why?
Because 21,500 additional troops isn't enough to do anything more than make it look like Bush is doing something to bring this war to a successful conclusion.
That's why.
Comments:
<< Home
Is there any reason to think this half-assed notion is any different from all the half-assed notions that preceded it? Do these guys think about this stuff at all before charging blindly ahead?
reality, you wrote:
"Just wait until Sadr takes the handcuffs off his militiamen. The violence will be back to exactly what is was before the surge. Or it will be even worse."
You've missed a rather crucial point. As I stated a month ago, muqtadr al-sadr is now a hunted man. The US wants him dead.
You can be sure US forces will kill him as soon as they get the chance. That's why he scooted to Iran not long ago.
Killing muqtadr al-sadr might take the efforts of 21,500 added troops. But his death will leave his followers in disarray, and end any hope they might have of seizing control of Iraq.
"Just wait until Sadr takes the handcuffs off his militiamen. The violence will be back to exactly what is was before the surge. Or it will be even worse."
You've missed a rather crucial point. As I stated a month ago, muqtadr al-sadr is now a hunted man. The US wants him dead.
You can be sure US forces will kill him as soon as they get the chance. That's why he scooted to Iran not long ago.
Killing muqtadr al-sadr might take the efforts of 21,500 added troops. But his death will leave his followers in disarray, and end any hope they might have of seizing control of Iraq.
If the U.S. wanted to get Sadr, they could have gotten him a million times over. They haven't gone after him because the Shiite power base he represents is also propping up the Maliki gov't. If they take out Sadr, Maliki goes. The U.S. isn't ready to do that yet.
But even if they do kill him or arrest him, the Shiite milita groups he represents aren't going anywhere. And they're pissed that Sadr and Maliki have instructed them to sit on their hands during the surge while the Sunni insurgent groups kill and maim like the surge never happened. A couple more big terrorist attacks on Shiites by Sunni extremists and the Shiite death squads are going to be back in full force. If you think killing Sadr solves the Shiite death squad problem, you're very, very naive.
But even if they do kill him or arrest him, the Shiite milita groups he represents aren't going anywhere. And they're pissed that Sadr and Maliki have instructed them to sit on their hands during the surge while the Sunni insurgent groups kill and maim like the surge never happened. A couple more big terrorist attacks on Shiites by Sunni extremists and the Shiite death squads are going to be back in full force. If you think killing Sadr solves the Shiite death squad problem, you're very, very naive.
reality, you wrote:
"If the U.S. wanted to get Sadr, they could have gotten him a million times over."
Like osama in the war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, muqtadr al-sadr was useful. But we learned about the danger of letting these clowns live after their usefulness has ended.
We learned the hard way that osama was one of our worst enemies. He's been neutralized, though I'm sure he's alive. Now it's muqtadr al-sadr's turn.
It's better to kill him. That will create a power struggle among his followers. Power struggles interrupt operations, including the source of support for these killers.
In fact, it's not a bad idea to let the sunnis do the heavy labor of killing muqtadr's forces.
You believe:
"They haven't gone after him because the Shiite power base he represents is also propping up the Maliki gov't."
Yeah, like muqtadr doesn't have dreams of becoming the new saddam.
You opined:
"If they take out Sadr, Maliki goes."
Says you.
You wrote:
"But even if they do kill him or arrest him, the Shiite milita groups he represents aren't going anywhere."
Iran wants to control Iraq. That can't happen without shiite cooperation. But that also means muqtadr's followers will die if they aid Iran in its goals or they will die if they try to seize power for themselves. Not bad for us either way.
You claimed:
"And they're pissed that Sadr and Maliki have instructed them to sit on their hands during the surge while the Sunni insurgent groups kill and maim like the surge never happened."
In other words, they might abandon muqtadr because he's abandoned them. Could be.
You added:
"A couple more big terrorist attacks on Shiites by Sunni extremists and the Shiite death squads are going to be back in full force."
And the first person they'll kill is muqtadr.
You concluded:
"If you think killing Sadr solves the Shiite death squad problem, you're very, very naive."
I see. I hadn't mentioned the shiite death squads. I said the death of muqtadr would create in-fighting among his followers, which is good for us.
Neverthleless, now you've decided the US must prevent Iraq from sliding into total civil war. Or do you favor Iran seizing at least some of it while cleansing the country of sunnis?
Or do you favor the Murtha surrender and pull-out commencing in 120 days?
Have you got any idea what plan the US should follow, or are you simply ping-ponging back and forth with the news items?
"If the U.S. wanted to get Sadr, they could have gotten him a million times over."
Like osama in the war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, muqtadr al-sadr was useful. But we learned about the danger of letting these clowns live after their usefulness has ended.
We learned the hard way that osama was one of our worst enemies. He's been neutralized, though I'm sure he's alive. Now it's muqtadr al-sadr's turn.
It's better to kill him. That will create a power struggle among his followers. Power struggles interrupt operations, including the source of support for these killers.
In fact, it's not a bad idea to let the sunnis do the heavy labor of killing muqtadr's forces.
You believe:
"They haven't gone after him because the Shiite power base he represents is also propping up the Maliki gov't."
Yeah, like muqtadr doesn't have dreams of becoming the new saddam.
You opined:
"If they take out Sadr, Maliki goes."
Says you.
You wrote:
"But even if they do kill him or arrest him, the Shiite milita groups he represents aren't going anywhere."
Iran wants to control Iraq. That can't happen without shiite cooperation. But that also means muqtadr's followers will die if they aid Iran in its goals or they will die if they try to seize power for themselves. Not bad for us either way.
You claimed:
"And they're pissed that Sadr and Maliki have instructed them to sit on their hands during the surge while the Sunni insurgent groups kill and maim like the surge never happened."
In other words, they might abandon muqtadr because he's abandoned them. Could be.
You added:
"A couple more big terrorist attacks on Shiites by Sunni extremists and the Shiite death squads are going to be back in full force."
And the first person they'll kill is muqtadr.
You concluded:
"If you think killing Sadr solves the Shiite death squad problem, you're very, very naive."
I see. I hadn't mentioned the shiite death squads. I said the death of muqtadr would create in-fighting among his followers, which is good for us.
Neverthleless, now you've decided the US must prevent Iraq from sliding into total civil war. Or do you favor Iran seizing at least some of it while cleansing the country of sunnis?
Or do you favor the Murtha surrender and pull-out commencing in 120 days?
Have you got any idea what plan the US should follow, or are you simply ping-ponging back and forth with the news items?
Let's see - I said the invasion of iraq would be quick but the occupation would be a nightmare. I said de-Baathification and disbanding the army was a bad idea because it put tens of thousands of trained (and armed) soldiers and government workers out of work and made them disgruntled. I said occupying Iraq w/ 170,000 troops was a bad idea because there wasn't enough military force to secure the country in the case that an homegrown insurgency rose up. I said sending in Heritage Foundation interns who had no expertise in their particular reconstruction areas to run the Iraq reconstruction was a bad idea. I said ignoring the insurgency and calling them "deadenders" was stupid and would come back to haunt them. I said NOT sending in more troops in 2003-2004 when it became clear the insurgency was here to stay was a bad idea. I said sending in 21,500 troops as a "surge" was nothing more than an empty gesture (even Petraeus wanted 80,000 to run the counterinsurgency plan) and would accomplish nothing substantial on the security front.
So far, I've been right on all those counts. So far, no_slappz, the neocons and the Bushies have been wrong about EVERYTHING they have said and done w/ Iraq.
And you know what? i don't claim to be an expert. But w/ a little reading, a little common sense and a little listening to the generals, all those mistakes could have been avoided. But they weren't because the people running the show and the Chickenhawk Brigade cheering them on were too arrogant and too stupid to change course while there was still time.
Now that time is over. Iraq will be divided into three whether we stay for another five years or leave tomorrow. Biden's plan provides for an orderly, constitutional partition; a more organic one won't be so orderly. But the ethnic relocation is already happening and the political partition will happen too.
Nice work, no_slappz. You and your neocon ilk took a dictator without nuclear weapons or WMD's who was contained and NO threat to the U.S. but who was a threat to Iran and took him out of power. You put Shiites w/ backing from Iran into power in Iran, set off a Sunni/Shiite civil war that is fast spreading out of iraq into the region as a whole. You created a Shiite crescent of power from Iran to Iraq to Lebanon. By taking out Saddam (Iran's natural predator) you emboldened and empowered Iran . Now all you do is scream hysterically about "Iran!!!!!" while it was your own necon policies that helped created the empowered Iran in the first place.
Nice work. If you had any sense at all, you'd know that this mess in both Iraq and Iran was self-created.
So far, I've been right on all those counts. So far, no_slappz, the neocons and the Bushies have been wrong about EVERYTHING they have said and done w/ Iraq.
And you know what? i don't claim to be an expert. But w/ a little reading, a little common sense and a little listening to the generals, all those mistakes could have been avoided. But they weren't because the people running the show and the Chickenhawk Brigade cheering them on were too arrogant and too stupid to change course while there was still time.
Now that time is over. Iraq will be divided into three whether we stay for another five years or leave tomorrow. Biden's plan provides for an orderly, constitutional partition; a more organic one won't be so orderly. But the ethnic relocation is already happening and the political partition will happen too.
Nice work, no_slappz. You and your neocon ilk took a dictator without nuclear weapons or WMD's who was contained and NO threat to the U.S. but who was a threat to Iran and took him out of power. You put Shiites w/ backing from Iran into power in Iran, set off a Sunni/Shiite civil war that is fast spreading out of iraq into the region as a whole. You created a Shiite crescent of power from Iran to Iraq to Lebanon. By taking out Saddam (Iran's natural predator) you emboldened and empowered Iran . Now all you do is scream hysterically about "Iran!!!!!" while it was your own necon policies that helped created the empowered Iran in the first place.
Nice work. If you had any sense at all, you'd know that this mess in both Iraq and Iran was self-created.
reality, you wrote:
"Let's see - I said the invasion of iraq would be quick but the occupation would be a nightmare."
Your blog hasn't been around since 2003. Hence, any claim you make today about what you stated then is unverifiable.
You wrote:
"I said de-Baathification and disbanding the army was a bad idea because it put tens of thousands of trained (and armed) soldiers and government workers out of work and made them disgruntled."
As usual, you carp about the plan that was followed. but you NEVER offer an alternative. Meanwhile, you have no idea what would have happened if a different path had been taken.
You claimed:
"So far, I've been right on all those counts."
You naively believe the world, specifically the middle east, would have stood still after 9/11 despite our invasion of Afghanistan.
YOu claimed:
"So far, no_slappz, the neocons and the Bushies have been wrong about EVERYTHING they have said and done w/ Iraq."
Your comment suggests you alone can foretell the future. Nice try.
You admitted:
"And you know what? i don't claim to be an expert."
That's why no one in Washington gives much consideration to people with your point of view. The Dems are not going to cut funding for Iraq despite the silly posturing of a few.
You preened:
"But w/ a little reading, a little common sense and a little listening to the generals, all those mistakes could have been avoided."
Your wisdom is a barely disguised expression of surrender.
You ranted:
"But they weren't because the people running the show and the Chickenhawk Brigade cheering them on were too arrogant and too stupid to change course while there was still time."
Of course, in your world, there's always a "point of no return." However, in the real world, that's not the case.
Is it lost on you that muslims have spent the last 1400 years either forcibly converting, driving out, or killing non-muslims who happen to live in territories they inhabit?
You declared:
"Now that time is over. Iraq will be divided into three whether we stay for another five years or leave tomorrow."
Really? Again, you think you can foretell events. Why? Because Syria and Iran are meeting with Condi to discuss plans for Iraq's future?
Since Syria is Iraq's proxy, any Iraq plan involving those two nations is a ruse. Iran has designs on the entire country and will succeed if it is granted a role in Iraq's future.
You further declared:
"Biden's plan provides for an orderly, constitutional partition; a more organic one won't be so orderly. But the ethnic relocation is already happening and the political partition will happen too.
Partitioning Iraq is reasonable. However, it's not likely any of the three segments will welcome their permanent annexation by neighboring states. Unless the three most likely states are independent and autonomous, your plan will lead to mass murder.
You congratulated:
"Nice work, no_slappz. You and your neocon ilk took a dictator without nuclear weapons or WMD's who was contained and NO threat to the U.S. but who was a threat to Iran and took him out of power."
Once again you display your belief that the middle east was on a set course of relative peace and calm before and after 9/11. You believe this even though Iraq invaded Kuwait and Iraq and Iran fought a war for eight years. You believe it even though Syria quietly took control of Lebanon, which, by extension, put Iran in charge. You believe it even though the Soviet Union fought a war in Afghanistan that led to the collapse of the Soviet empire. You believe it even after 9/11.
You wailed:
"You put Shiites w/ backing from Iran into power in Iran, set off a Sunni/Shiite civil war that is fast spreading out of iraq into the region as a whole."
During the Iran/Iraq war in the 1980s, both sides were slaughtering each other. In other words, loyalty is a tenuous thing in the middle east and switching sides happens every day. So what?
You failed history by stating:
"You created a Shiite crescent of power from Iran to Iraq to Lebanon."
Wrong. The hezbollah savages backed by Iran committed their first suicide bombing in 1983 when they murdered 241 Marines at ther barracks in Lebanon. The muslim killers have been at it for a long time.
You dreamed:
"By taking out Saddam (Iran's natural predator) you emboldened and empowered Iran."
Oh. I see. In other words, you're claiming the Iranian nuclear weapons program was undertaken in response to our invasion of Iraq. Nice try.
You screamed:
"Now all you do is scream hysterically about "Iran!!!!!" while it was your own necon policies that helped created the empowered Iran in the first place."
Sure. Every move made by Iran is in response to US actions and policies. Yeah, that country never acts in what it believes are its own interests, however insane those interests or aims may be.
And in your Grand Finale you uttered the ultimate statement of blame:
"Nice work. If you had any sense at all, you'd know that this mess in both Iraq and Iran was self-created."
In other words, you're blaming the US for 9/11.
"Let's see - I said the invasion of iraq would be quick but the occupation would be a nightmare."
Your blog hasn't been around since 2003. Hence, any claim you make today about what you stated then is unverifiable.
You wrote:
"I said de-Baathification and disbanding the army was a bad idea because it put tens of thousands of trained (and armed) soldiers and government workers out of work and made them disgruntled."
As usual, you carp about the plan that was followed. but you NEVER offer an alternative. Meanwhile, you have no idea what would have happened if a different path had been taken.
You claimed:
"So far, I've been right on all those counts."
You naively believe the world, specifically the middle east, would have stood still after 9/11 despite our invasion of Afghanistan.
YOu claimed:
"So far, no_slappz, the neocons and the Bushies have been wrong about EVERYTHING they have said and done w/ Iraq."
Your comment suggests you alone can foretell the future. Nice try.
You admitted:
"And you know what? i don't claim to be an expert."
That's why no one in Washington gives much consideration to people with your point of view. The Dems are not going to cut funding for Iraq despite the silly posturing of a few.
You preened:
"But w/ a little reading, a little common sense and a little listening to the generals, all those mistakes could have been avoided."
Your wisdom is a barely disguised expression of surrender.
You ranted:
"But they weren't because the people running the show and the Chickenhawk Brigade cheering them on were too arrogant and too stupid to change course while there was still time."
Of course, in your world, there's always a "point of no return." However, in the real world, that's not the case.
Is it lost on you that muslims have spent the last 1400 years either forcibly converting, driving out, or killing non-muslims who happen to live in territories they inhabit?
You declared:
"Now that time is over. Iraq will be divided into three whether we stay for another five years or leave tomorrow."
Really? Again, you think you can foretell events. Why? Because Syria and Iran are meeting with Condi to discuss plans for Iraq's future?
Since Syria is Iraq's proxy, any Iraq plan involving those two nations is a ruse. Iran has designs on the entire country and will succeed if it is granted a role in Iraq's future.
You further declared:
"Biden's plan provides for an orderly, constitutional partition; a more organic one won't be so orderly. But the ethnic relocation is already happening and the political partition will happen too.
Partitioning Iraq is reasonable. However, it's not likely any of the three segments will welcome their permanent annexation by neighboring states. Unless the three most likely states are independent and autonomous, your plan will lead to mass murder.
You congratulated:
"Nice work, no_slappz. You and your neocon ilk took a dictator without nuclear weapons or WMD's who was contained and NO threat to the U.S. but who was a threat to Iran and took him out of power."
Once again you display your belief that the middle east was on a set course of relative peace and calm before and after 9/11. You believe this even though Iraq invaded Kuwait and Iraq and Iran fought a war for eight years. You believe it even though Syria quietly took control of Lebanon, which, by extension, put Iran in charge. You believe it even though the Soviet Union fought a war in Afghanistan that led to the collapse of the Soviet empire. You believe it even after 9/11.
You wailed:
"You put Shiites w/ backing from Iran into power in Iran, set off a Sunni/Shiite civil war that is fast spreading out of iraq into the region as a whole."
During the Iran/Iraq war in the 1980s, both sides were slaughtering each other. In other words, loyalty is a tenuous thing in the middle east and switching sides happens every day. So what?
You failed history by stating:
"You created a Shiite crescent of power from Iran to Iraq to Lebanon."
Wrong. The hezbollah savages backed by Iran committed their first suicide bombing in 1983 when they murdered 241 Marines at ther barracks in Lebanon. The muslim killers have been at it for a long time.
You dreamed:
"By taking out Saddam (Iran's natural predator) you emboldened and empowered Iran."
Oh. I see. In other words, you're claiming the Iranian nuclear weapons program was undertaken in response to our invasion of Iraq. Nice try.
You screamed:
"Now all you do is scream hysterically about "Iran!!!!!" while it was your own necon policies that helped created the empowered Iran in the first place."
Sure. Every move made by Iran is in response to US actions and policies. Yeah, that country never acts in what it believes are its own interests, however insane those interests or aims may be.
And in your Grand Finale you uttered the ultimate statement of blame:
"Nice work. If you had any sense at all, you'd know that this mess in both Iraq and Iran was self-created."
In other words, you're blaming the US for 9/11.
I'm glad to hear this mess in Iraq and and the fast developing mes in Afghanistan couldn't be avoided. Once again, you prove why trying to have a dialogue with you is pointless. You're a hysterical, delusional crazy person. Every time you write something, it's a Captain Queeg moment. I'm done w/ you.
reality, you wrote:
"I'm glad to hear this mess in Iraq and and the fast developing mes in Afghanistan couldn't be avoided."
Let's see. About 800,000 Tutsis were hacked to death by Hutus in Rwanda. We didn't get involved. No nation stepped in to stop the slaughter.
Do you think the genocide would have claimed as many victims if the US, the UN or any nation would have butted in?
Let's see. Pol Pot murdered an estimated 2 million. Maybe more. No nation tried to stop him. What would have been the outcome if at least one nation had?
Let's see, saddam invaded Kuwait. How bad would things have gotten for Kuwaitis if we had not run him out?
Nobody butted into the civil war that erupted in Mozambique after Portugal abandoned its colony more or less in the middle of the night. The Mozambique civil war lasted 20 years. Possibly two million civilians were killed.
Would so many have died if another nation had stepped in to stop the killing?
You live with the naive view that bad guys are dormant most of the time and only crawl out of their caves to rebuff the US.
Would North Korea surge into South Korea if our troops weren't on the border between the two? Even you would agree that's the most likely scenario.
There are murderous fights underway around the world at all times. Most don't have much effect on the US. Often enough the fights are over autonomy, like the Basque Separatists in Spain or the Tamils in Sri Lanka. Internal stuff that has no impact on the world.
But the middle east is, unfortunately, different. Control of oil cannot fall into the hands of a few muslim nuts willing to cut off supplies. For that reason alone, the major powers of the world will meddle.
Post a Comment
"I'm glad to hear this mess in Iraq and and the fast developing mes in Afghanistan couldn't be avoided."
Let's see. About 800,000 Tutsis were hacked to death by Hutus in Rwanda. We didn't get involved. No nation stepped in to stop the slaughter.
Do you think the genocide would have claimed as many victims if the US, the UN or any nation would have butted in?
Let's see. Pol Pot murdered an estimated 2 million. Maybe more. No nation tried to stop him. What would have been the outcome if at least one nation had?
Let's see, saddam invaded Kuwait. How bad would things have gotten for Kuwaitis if we had not run him out?
Nobody butted into the civil war that erupted in Mozambique after Portugal abandoned its colony more or less in the middle of the night. The Mozambique civil war lasted 20 years. Possibly two million civilians were killed.
Would so many have died if another nation had stepped in to stop the killing?
You live with the naive view that bad guys are dormant most of the time and only crawl out of their caves to rebuff the US.
Would North Korea surge into South Korea if our troops weren't on the border between the two? Even you would agree that's the most likely scenario.
There are murderous fights underway around the world at all times. Most don't have much effect on the US. Often enough the fights are over autonomy, like the Basque Separatists in Spain or the Tamils in Sri Lanka. Internal stuff that has no impact on the world.
But the middle east is, unfortunately, different. Control of oil cannot fall into the hands of a few muslim nuts willing to cut off supplies. For that reason alone, the major powers of the world will meddle.
<< Home
