I
ABC...
raqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has a history of tailoring his public statements for political purposes, made headlines by saying he would support a withdrawal of American forces by 2010. But an Iraqi government statement made clear that Mr. Maliki’s timetable would extend at least seven months beyond Mr. Obama’s. More significant, it would be “a timetable which Iraqis set” — not the Washington-imposed schedule that Mr. Obama has in mind. It would also be conditioned on the readiness of Iraqi forces, the same linkage that Gen. Petraeus seeks. As Mr. Obama put it, Mr. Maliki “wants some flexibility in terms of how that’s carried out.”

Mcain said that only if conditions ...

I
ABC...
raqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has a history of tailoring his public statements for political purposes, made headlines by saying he would support a withdrawal of American forces by 2010. But an Iraqi government statement made clear that Mr. Maliki’s timetable would extend at least seven months beyond Mr. Obama’s. More significant, it would be “a timetable which Iraqis set” — not the Washington-imposed schedule that Mr. Obama has in mind. It would also be conditioned on the readiness of Iraqi forces, the same linkage that Gen. Petraeus seeks. As Mr. Obama put it, Mr. Maliki “wants some flexibility in terms of how that’s carried out.”

Mcain said that only if conditions on the ground allow it, would 16 months be "about right." When Obama was saying 16 months (2007) conditions were nowhere near about right...

Why is it that people who try to lead with hindsight only end up seeing what others have already seen? Their ass....

Myth... I suggest you do some reading by folks who have been in that area working on donations who have no dog in this fight and see what they have been saying. I suggest Michael Totten and Michael Yon for starters. Citizen journalists who only seek to find out for themselves and report what they find and rely on donations solely from readers and the books they write about their own experiences.

The Awakening was only possible because the Sunnis were convinced that we would not leave and they could undertake the change. For more information on this I also commend Totten and Yon. They have been there, interviewed and spoken with the leaders of the Awakening, and were there when it st...

Myth... I suggest you do some reading by folks who have been in that area working on donations who have no dog in this fight and see what they have been saying. I suggest Michael Totten and Michael Yon for starters. Citizen journalists who only seek to find out for themselves and report what they find and rely on donations solely from readers and the books they write about their own experiences.

The Awakening was only possible because the Sunnis were convinced that we would not leave and they could undertake the change. For more information on this I also commend Totten and Yon. They have been there, interviewed and spoken with the leaders of the Awakening, and were there when it started.

Other excellent sources of information on the true story would be iraqi bloggers that have been through it all. Iraq the Model at blogspot, Mesopotamian and Hammorabi are just a few that I read to find out the true story.

These folks have no d or r after their names and don't report the news according to an agenda. They report FACTS as they are there living and experiencing them. NOT from a hotel in Baghdad in the comfort of the green zone. They risk their lives to investigate the truth - to bring it to those who choose to be educated with informed decisions based on these good folks knowledge and expertise of having lived there and traveled there so that we can then speak about these issues from a position of knowledge.

If you choose to limit your sources of information to the American media and that conform to your worldview, I'm sorry for you. But please don't pretend to expound on these topics without having read about it extensively and relying solely on soundbites from the evening news, Fox or CNN.

That doesn't answer my point nor those it explain why a brigade worth of troops change the equation. Signs of the Awakening have popped up since 2004 with the first council created in 2006, nearly half a year before the "Surge". Their motivation? Teaming up with al-Qaeda really hurt them, as they could not be trusted.

As for Al-Sadr, he is a nationalist who wants to play in the elections. It was his militias that won the Battle of Sadr City under the very noses of the Americans, helping the Badr Corps and others ethnic cleanse Baghdad. Where do you think al-Mailiki gets his strength from?

Besides Totten described himself as supporting the war and did most of his work as an embed. In othe...

That doesn't answer my point nor those it explain why a brigade worth of troops change the equation. Signs of the Awakening have popped up since 2004 with the first council created in 2006, nearly half a year before the "Surge". Their motivation? Teaming up with al-Qaeda really hurt them, as they could not be trusted.

As for Al-Sadr, he is a nationalist who wants to play in the elections. It was his militias that won the Battle of Sadr City under the very noses of the Americans, helping the Badr Corps and others ethnic cleanse Baghdad. Where do you think al-Mailiki gets his strength from?

Besides Totten described himself as supporting the war and did most of his work as an embed. In other words he got what the Pentagon wanted him to see.

My point is that whatever changes happened in Iraq, they had nothing to do with the Surge, so the claim of "success" is not possible. Other forces are at work, forces that can easily be reversed. Not to mention that so called success ignores the worsening situation in Kurdistand and perhaps what might happen in Mosul.

Al-Sadr is still around, still defiant.

And this statement ignores a fundamental reality of Iraqi politics:

What looks now like the last gasp dying gasp of the various anti-Iraqi insurgencies is all that remains of these various wars in Iraq. If attacks against the Iraqi government and multinational forces drop off to zero or near zero, it ought to go without saying that the insurgent groups will have lost and the counterinsurgents will have won.

Except that the current Iraqi army is infested with pro-Iranian Badr corps units. My guess is that all forces in Iraq are keeping their powder dry until the Americans leave. After that they will either settle their scores politically or militarily. Iraq is already a fragmented nation what happens next is anyone's guess, but the U.S. has little or no influence over these events.

The only way to get into Iraq was as an imbed which is far more than the folks did who you are basing your opinions on. And as far as being an imbed, he has gone to many areas and spoken to the people he has wanted. There were many areas that he asked to visit that the Pentagon was hesistant to allow him to go as it was too "unsafe." He went anyway. He has spoken to who he asked to speak to, coalition troops, commanders, Iraqis, Sheiks, tribal leaders, Iraqi government leaders, etc. He was not led around by the Pentagon. He chose where he went.

And dismissing his entire reportage because he was "for the war" is laughable. Do you therefore dismiss all the assessments of anyone who...

The only way to get into Iraq was as an imbed which is far more than the folks did who you are basing your opinions on. And as far as being an imbed, he has gone to many areas and spoken to the people he has wanted. There were many areas that he asked to visit that the Pentagon was hesistant to allow him to go as it was too "unsafe." He went anyway. He has spoken to who he asked to speak to, coalition troops, commanders, Iraqis, Sheiks, tribal leaders, Iraqi government leaders, etc. He was not led around by the Pentagon. He chose where he went.

And dismissing his entire reportage because he was "for the war" is laughable. Do you therefore dismiss all the assessments of anyone who was for the war? That includes alot of democrats currently serving in congress. I bet you mean you dismiss only those who were for the war that are now still advocating for finishing the job, not those that were for the war but are now opposed. So in other words you are only willing to listen to those who are an echo of your own thoughts... so close minded of you.

No injury there when you haven't answered any of my points. And I don't follow the MSM that closely, I do have more varied sources. As for being pro-war, that certainly would have colored his judgment, and we have seen how readily pro-war advocates are willing to creatively interpret "facts on the ground" to suit their purpose.

Again, just because two events are close in time does not mean that they are linked. What would happen if the Kurds make a play for Mosul and Kirkuk, or the war between the MEK/Iran and the PKK/Turkey escalates, or the al-Sadr abandons the truce (he claims to no concentrate on "occupation" targets, not the Iraqi goverment).

Again, the idea that the Surge has lead to...

No injury there when you haven't answered any of my points. And I don't follow the MSM that closely, I do have more varied sources. As for being pro-war, that certainly would have colored his judgment, and we have seen how readily pro-war advocates are willing to creatively interpret "facts on the ground" to suit their purpose.

Again, just because two events are close in time does not mean that they are linked. What would happen if the Kurds make a play for Mosul and Kirkuk, or the war between the MEK/Iran and the PKK/Turkey escalates, or the al-Sadr abandons the truce (he claims to no concentrate on "occupation" targets, not the Iraqi goverment).

Again, the idea that the Surge has lead to success and these seeming declarations of victory are at the very least premature. Then of course it is what happens next. Is Iran the next target? Will the U.S. transform Iraq into it's colony in the region?

I heard a lot of the same talk weeks and months after the invasion, that the war was over and the battle was won. I lot of people ignored the signs that everything was not as it seemed and a lot of people payed the price for it.

I take it you didn't bother to read the whole article. Al Sadr is on the sidelines in Iran.. and impotent. Much of his support has dissolved.

Extrapolating that some people do x to assume all do is not worthy of response. It is stereotyping at its most base.

Mas... as far as the Sunnis... I suggest you go read Totten and his interviews with them. They dare not take on the outsiders without assurances that we would be there. If we had left, the number of outsiders interfering in Iraq would have mushroomed even further and the Awakening would have never occurred. The neighborhoods are indeed walled off now, but the houses are reoccupied as many of those scared away are returnin...

I take it you didn't bother to read the whole article. Al Sadr is on the sidelines in Iran.. and impotent. Much of his support has dissolved.

Extrapolating that some people do x to assume all do is not worthy of response. It is stereotyping at its most base.

Mas... as far as the Sunnis... I suggest you go read Totten and his interviews with them. They dare not take on the outsiders without assurances that we would be there. If we had left, the number of outsiders interfering in Iraq would have mushroomed even further and the Awakening would have never occurred. The neighborhoods are indeed walled off now, but the houses are reoccupied as many of those scared away are returning and the neighborhoods are remixing to their pre 2006 levels. Even the Christians that were being driven out by the outsiders are starting to return. The Iraqi Sunni and Shia are welcoming them back and helping them rebuild their churches. The fences help to interfere with quick ingress and egress by outsiders and the neighbors are quick to call for assistance when outsiders show up. Sometimes fences do make for good neighbors.

The latest benchmark assessment given out was by the Bush Administration's own Department of State so take it for what it is worth from a lying administration.

Furthermore the wording states "are being met" which means they have not been met, "in a satisfactory fashion". Satisfactory to whom? The American taxpayer and their grandchildren who will be paying off this $5 trillion dollar fiasco for decades to come? Satisfactory for the 4,000 dead GI's and over 40,000 wounded GI's. I'm guessing "No!".

After 8 years of BS there are still people like tnt lining up to feed from the Bush trough of lies. Amazing.

Here is another clip on how "success" if any success has been achieved through the sur...

The latest benchmark assessment given out was by the Bush Administration's own Department of State so take it for what it is worth from a lying administration.

Furthermore the wording states "are being met" which means they have not been met, "in a satisfactory fashion". Satisfactory to whom? The American taxpayer and their grandchildren who will be paying off this $5 trillion dollar fiasco for decades to come? Satisfactory for the 4,000 dead GI's and over 40,000 wounded GI's. I'm guessing "No!".

After 8 years of BS there are still people like tnt lining up to feed from the Bush trough of lies. Amazing.

Here is another clip on how "success" if any success has been achieved through the surge -> a direct transfer from U.S. taxpayers to Sunni insurgents who will go right back to what they were doing as soon as the money spigot dries up.

Surge success as told and discussed by U.S. GI's.

You could stay in Iraq for 50 years and you would not make Shiites and Sunnis brothers. Period. You can continue to sink money into a sink hole just like we did in Vietnam.

There was no one more naive than the Bush Administration and those fools who voted for them.

Giving Iraq their choice of government was giving them the choice to be an Islamic Republic just like Iran. Anybody with half a brain realized that. If this war had been sold to the U.S. on "We are going to get rid of Saddam so we can bring democracy to this region" instead of the lies about Weapons of Mass Destructions we would never have been there and that is a fact. The U.S. citizenry would never have gone for it.

It is al...

You could stay in Iraq for 50 years and you would not make Shiites and Sunnis brothers. Period. You can continue to sink money into a sink hole just like we did in Vietnam.

There was no one more naive than the Bush Administration and those fools who voted for them.

Giving Iraq their choice of government was giving them the choice to be an Islamic Republic just like Iran. Anybody with half a brain realized that. If this war had been sold to the U.S. on "We are going to get rid of Saddam so we can bring democracy to this region" instead of the lies about Weapons of Mass Destructions we would never have been there and that is a fact. The U.S. citizenry would never have gone for it.

It is also interesting that Democrats passed a resolution to partition Iraq to keep warring factions apart to reduce the violence. It's amazing now that republicans/conservatives crow about the surge when that is all they have done, partition Baghdad and keep the Sunnis and Shiites apart.

If we leave Iraq and it falls apart don't blame Democrats. Democrats recognized long ago that Iraq is three warring factions trying to be united under a blood stained flag. We had the chance to address it but the Bush administration insists on wasting U.S. taxpayer money for a united Iraq simply for prides sake.

Actually the threat to leave Iraq did motivate those individuals who were causing much of the violence to shift their strategy. This point is made and articulated by Colonel Sean Macfarland in the magazine Military Review:

Finally, as Colonel Sean McFarland argued in Military Review: "A growing concern that the U.S. would leave Iraq and leave the Sunnis defenseless against al-Qaeda and Iranian-supported militias made these younger leaders open to our overtures."

John Kerry mentioned in a news program that when he asked power brokers in Iraq if there was any motivation to compromise with their advisories and reconcile their differences he was told "No" because the U.S. was going to continue...

Actually the threat to leave Iraq did motivate those individuals who were causing much of the violence to shift their strategy. This point is made and articulated by Colonel Sean Macfarland in the magazine Military Review:

Finally, as Colonel Sean McFarland argued in Military Review: "A growing concern that the U.S. would leave Iraq and leave the Sunnis defenseless against al-Qaeda and Iranian-supported militias made these younger leaders open to our overtures."

John Kerry mentioned in a news program that when he asked power brokers in Iraq if there was any motivation to compromise with their advisories and reconcile their differences he was told "No" because the U.S. was going to continue to be there (from a trip to Iraq in 2007-08).

I do think when power brokers are faced with either making some concessions or facing total chaos it is easy to see that they had better get their act together. They aren't as stupid as average U.S. citizens want to make them out to be. But if the U.S. wants to stay forever and provide relative security for them, the power brokers will stall forever to see if the can achieve some sort of advantage over other parties.

Here is a pretty good panel discussion on what importance the surge has had. It is very simplistic to give only the surge the entire credit for a reduction in violence.

How Important Was the Surge?