Al Q has it's back broken in Iraq. ZERO Al Q control in Baghdad!!

Well Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Fil Jr., commander of United States forces in Baghdad disagrees with you Double Naught. I believe he is more familiar with the reality there then you or I and therefore is more likely correct. Do you have some information that he doesn't? What areas are under AlQ control? Where is AlQ's strong back in Iraq? Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds have rejected them. Are you aware of some conflicting facts that show AlQ is still strong there?

Tell me this isn't just hanging on to a political need for failure there. Tell me that your not more interested in defeating Republican leadership then AlQ in Iraq.
 
Yes, and the man responsible for security in that area has absolutely no incentive to play up his achievements (and those of his men). Also, there is absolutely no such thing as politics in the military. But then, we've done this dance before.

And while I'll not go so far as to ask you (or MG Fil) to prove a negative, I find the idea of "zero" control in Baghdad to be a bit extreme. "Zero" in this context is one of those absolutes like "never" and "always" which is highly unlikely to apply in most cases.

Hey, if it turns out that Al-Qaeda really does have its back broken and in a year things are still going absolutely great (and getting better) in Iraq, you'll find no happier man than I...these things can affect me very directly, remember. This doesn't mean that I expect it to actually be the case; pleasant surprises are the best kind, though.
 
Bruxley,
The ability to superimpose new words into an old statement is hardly profound or enlightening. A bit surprised at how much GoSlash was impressed.
Click to expand...
Minor topic drift, but that wasn't the post I was referring to. Kinda impossible, considering my post predated the post you're referring to by over an hour.
/just sayin'.
 
True GoSlash. My bad. I made a mistake there.

Did you look into any of this yet BTW. Baghdad/Iraq are hardly sealed off to the outside world. I mean if this General were glossing up the situation or his facts were bunk there are plenty of people with the willingness and ability to debunk his claims. Any stories doing that?

Petraeus laid out a plan of local to central alliance building to turn Iraq around. Working first with local tribal leaders from the premise that we were not going to tell THAT tribe how to live. They can live be whatever traditions they like. The people were to select a leader and that selection would be respected as would HOW they wanted to live under 1 condition, no killing each other.

They go to the next tribal group and repeat until it was understood that the Americans weren't going to force them to live any other way then they themselves chose. The expectation of them was that they also allowed their neighbors to live how THEY chose. NO KILLING EACH OTHER being the only non-negotiable condition.

Add to that the promise that should anyone else try killing them that the US military would be on task in force to back up their right to self determine how they live. Liberty under their own terms by their own definition. Appealing prospect to a culture used to injustice.

Follow that with KEEPING THAT PROMISE and word quickly spreads that this new General has kept his word and let's them live in peace in the tradition and values THEY wish and you see why Al Q who has killed and threatened to kill more if their will isn't complied with starts looking less like an ally and more like the enemy.

The human desire for freedom to live as they wish is just that, a HUMAN desire. Give them the avenue to it and you have an ally. Just patrolling for insurgents wasn't getting it done and fed the fear that taking sides risked winding up on the wrong one in the end. And to a culture used to injustice, a risk like that wasn't even considered.

The more this goes on, and the more assured the promise will be kept, the more success this General's plan has and assance that it will continue to succeed. When it reaches critical mass is when the Iraqi authorities are keeping the promise not Americans.

One more aspect that works is that it shows by action a lack of intent to permanently occupy. Iraqis are becoming more and more their OWN promise keepers. Many areas of Iraq are self policed and secured only by Iraqi forces.

Local to central. Liberty on their own terms. No more rule of the gun. Religious AND secular law agree at least on this if little else.

Some have said that Iraq is getting 'segregated' by this. Well it IS human nature for people that want to live a certain way to group together and there are areas that 'live and let live' can mix.

This summary lacks alot of the details General Petraeus gave but I hope that now that RESULTS are being realized that more people will be interested in what his actual approach is. Maybe be able to see the reasons it has been, and has the ability to continue to be a lasting, Military free, AlQ free, and civil war free solution.

I find it very impressive and as I said, I hope political partisanship doesn't keep people here from seeing why/how we actually ARE succeeding in Iraq.
 
"The threat posed by terrorism is not new, not all that dire, and does not warrant the goofy lengths we've gone to.
The "war on terror" (such as it is) is a national security matter and worth winning. "



should be a war fought by spec ops and spec ops only, b/c you can't wage traditional war with terrorists, you just can't win.
Click to expand...


I agree with both of these posters although I think there are times bombs and missiles could be appropriate. .Someone else mentioned that spec ops weren't the tool to use but the Israelis seem to do well with using assasination and fear against their own terrorists even in other countries than their own. It would sure be a ton cheaper than this daisychained cluster****.

Bruxley,
If it works great. It sounds like a sensible way to go about solving some of the problems we created. I'm a wee bit skeptical yet because the mission was accomplished a few years ago and then promptly blew up in our faces.

Jaun Carlos and any other veteran here,
Thank you for your service.
 
IF it works.......it IS working. And to continue with the slogans your using, we won the war and are now winning the peace. The reason you don't yet hear the administration bring the progress to the fore is for a future post but has been touched on a bit already.

And thanks, it was a privilege.
 
Bruxley,
It's NOT working. I mean... things may be slowly stabilizing (which is good I guess) but when it's all said and done the stable state isn't worth the price of admission.
We have to take a longer view here. What's done is done and we have to consider this in terms of what happens from here on out. So let's say that your goal of a peaceful stable Iraq is attainable. #1 what is the cost? #2 What is the benefit?
Does #2 justify #1? After my post upstream it should be evident where I stand; a stable peaceful Iranian puppet state isn't worth anything to us. Especially not 100 lives and a billion dollars a month over an untold time period to make it happen.
 
Maybe be able to see the reasons it has been, and has the ability to continue to be a lasting, Military free, AlQ free, and civil war free solution.
Click to expand...

Didn't you just say that there is no civil war because our military is killing anyone who tries to fight one? What happens if we leave?

"...But the Iraqi army simply wasn't strong enough to bottle up the centuries of seething sectarian hatred in Iraq; nor did they have the will to fight their countrymen, especially those with similar religious beliefs."

Nothing wrong with learning a bit from history.
 
IF it works.......it IS working. And to continue with the slogans your using, we won the war and are now winning the peace. The reason you don't yet hear the administration bring the progress to the fore is for a future post but has been touched on a bit already.
Click to expand...

From what I have seen (limited as it may be) there is not a lot of progress here (in sunny Afghanistan). People are still living in the stone ages (literally there is no infrastructure in most areas), people are still killing each other and Americans/allies.

Granted the Taliban and OBL is out but this country is spinning it's wheels and staying in the same place it was. Look at post war Germany and Japan.... they rebounded. I do not see that in Afghanistan (judging from news it is not happening in Iraq). In fact I have a hard time imagining that even in 10+ years that this will be any different.

It is unfortunate, I think a lot of people are trying and their hearts are in the right place but really nothing is changing. (I can not be more specific in my opinion at this point)

I can tell you that it hits you right in the gut when you see flag drapped caskets heading down the drag to fly home every few weeks... I sure hope that in the end all of this is worth it. I would like to say more on that but I can't.
 
People are still living in the stone ages (literally there is no infrastructure in most areas), people are still killing each other and Americans/allies
Click to expand...

So apparently we have completed the mission there as they are now where they were pre-invasion except without OBL and the Taliban! (a note of humor and sarcasm there)

Seriously- Iraq has some hope as they were living in at least the 1940's range of technology and comfort. Afghanistan likely won't have much infrastructure after we leave beyond what our military builds for its own purposes and to be sure, I don't think they would know what to do with it after we leave. I believe it will all fall apart and they will be back to riding donkeys where they need to go. At least they are all well armed.

Being realistic in the GWOT seems to have escaped some. What were our intentions in Afghanistan? To punish the Taliban for harboring OBL and AQ. At least that is what it seems I was told so it looks like we've just about finished it. All we need to do is make sure that our next enemy is firmly entrenched there rather than our past enemy.
 
Didn't you just say that there is no civil war because our military is killing anyone who tries to fight one? What happens if we leave?
Click to expand...
No. Try reading it again. The argument has been made that if we leave now Iraq would descend into a civil war. Not a poor extrapolation if the situation is left with a lack of adequate IRAQI promise keepers. As of now that has not been fully accomplished hence our continued presence.

As for what if we leave, that depends of when we leave. Leave now and it's promise broken, leave when when the above is completed then the no AlQ, no civil war, no US military result mentioned above manifests.

It's NOT working. I mean... things may be slowly stabilizing (which is good I guess) but when it's all said and done the stable state isn't worth the price of admission.
Click to expand...

Again, Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Fil Jr., commander of United States forces in Baghdad disagrees with you and I believe he is more familiar with the reality there then you or I and therefore is more likely correct. Also neither Baghdad or Iraq are sealed off and plenty of people with both the abillity and willingness to disprove his statments or debunk his facts haven't done so. Do you have some information that he doesn't? What areas are under AlQ control? Where is AlQ's strong back in Iraq? Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds have rejected them. Are you aware of some conflicting facts that show AlQ is still strong there?

The truism that evil can only prevail when good men do nothing comes to mind when people ask what the value of defeating AlQ is. It's not hard to see that they're defeat is a benefit is it?? And what benefit has ever come with no cost?

Worth it? Well you may be familiar with the term 'peril of prevention'. No dead American civilians since we took the fight to them instead of continuing the 'police action' tact taken before. What is the worth of that?

It will soon come around that the question is asked, how many FEWER dead American service men and women would there be if the Democrat led Congress wasn't so obstructionist in getting this General the resources he needed every since we was unanimously confirmed by the Senate knowing that this was his plan when they confirmed him. Especially should the success the plan is enjoying continue to it's conclusion.

It's only been since June that the surge has been in place. He was confirmed in January. That's 6 months he was denied resources. And it hasn't stopped. Today Hoyer is announced he will be holding hostage more legislation unless the Democrat schedule of troop withdraw is accepted.

To our friends in Afghanistan, sorry about the drop in your readiness. It appears from your post that your seeing real and tragic results of the reluctance of Congress to give you what you need. Only this week did your resources get approved as the Appropriations legislation has been held up this long trying to undermine the plan General Petraeus was confirmed to implement. Political need for failure has been prioritized over your need for resources.

At some point the balance beam has to be taken out and hate for Bush put on one side and ability to see success and support that as a means to the end of the Iraq war be put on the other. Is turning success into failure worth further attacking a President in the last year of his last term?
 
So apparently we have completed the mission there as they are now where they were pre-invasion except without OBL and the Taliban! (a note of humor and sarcasm there)
Click to expand...

No. We've traded a very small stack of our honored dead and a number of unfortunate civilians for a very large stack of dead Al Qaeda members. This was the original idea after a couple of 'planes smacked into the WTC, right?

Trading a few of ours for a bunch of theirs used to be what a success in war was about. Especially if you can do it in someone else's yard.

I'd hate to see what some of our stalwarts would have been spouting after the first couple of days of the Ardennes. We'd surrendered two regiments and had 19,000 troops die at the hands of Germans that we attacked first.

Read that again. 19,000.

Some folks dont understand that wars are harder to win than hollywood would have you believe.
 
Criteria for ending? Let's use history as a guide. When we've penned their Constitution and they are a valuable trading partner? I like it.

When did have the last surrender of a Japanese soldier...wasn't it like in the mid seventies or something?
 
Last edited:
See Germany...or Japan.

How long did we "occupy" Germany after WWII? I know I left in '91.

Are we moving towards some sort of stability in Iraq? I don't know. It does seem awful early to throw one's hands up and leave, though, don't it?
 
So does that mean we have won the war?

If not, what would be criteria we have to meet to win the war?

How do we tell when its over?
Click to expand...

I think a reading of the thread verses a flippant post might answer the flippant question.;)

Posts by Bruxley are especially informative.:p
I hold the honor of being quoted in the sig of GoSlash after all. Although not with the support of the candidate he implies.:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top