On background: The supplemental information on the Iraq War
posted at 5:20 pm on April 8, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I joined a few other bloggers for a briefing on the Iraq mission earlier this afternoon, as a companion piece to the testimony of General David Petraeus. Our briefer was a senior administration official with an expertise in the military and political situation in Iraq, and he provided a broader perspective on the efforts. None of it came as a complete surprise; it didn’t contain any major scoops, but underscored some of what the reporting has missed.
Most of the briefing focused on Basra, which has received fairly distorted coverage. According to this well-placed source, Nouri al-Maliki’s move against Moqtada al-Sadr came entirely on Maliki’s initiative — which pleases the Coalition. He needed to move against Sadr in order to establish credibility as an Iraqi national leader rather than a Shi’ite factional leader. Also, the situation in Basra and Umm Qasr threatened Iraq’s ability to export its oil, a critical factor in maintaining cohesion between all of the sects and populations of Iraq. Maliki had to act to enforce the rule of law rather than gangsterism.
Did it work? At first, Maliki appeared to bite off more than he could chew. The official explained that Maliki thought it would be easy to simply capture a couple dozen gang leaders and senior militia commanders, and that would collapse all of the opposition. Maliki underestimated their strength and overestimated his local strength in Basra; the defections showed that the green 14th division and local police forces weren’t up to the task. However, he brought thousands of reinforcements that performed excellently, and the Coalition leadership remains optimistic overall about the Iraqi national forces.
Sadr’s connections to Iran have done him no favors in the Iraqi political environment. The rest of the Shi’ites in the south have little love for the Iranians, and the heavy hand of Tehran in the Basra fighting has exposed Sadr even further as a puppet of Iran. The Iraqis need to secure their borders with Iran better in the future to keep the Qods force from easily supporting Sadr, however.
Focusing back on American policy, the 45-day pause in drawdowns Petraeus requested will enable the US to take a clear look at necessary troop levels for the future. This refers to the non-surge troop levels of 130,000; the natural drawdown of the surge troops will continue through the summer. Petraeus will have time to assess the short- and long-term requirements for the mission. Will the militia problems continue, or will the issues decline to the point where we can pull out more combat troops? It retains flexibility, keeps the levels conditions-based, and allows for a rational commitment rather than anything tied to the political winds back in DC.
As I said, none of this comes as a bolt out of the blue. It gives a better understanding of the circumstances surrounding the Petraeus testimony, at least from the perspective of the administration.
Update: Rob “NZ Bear” Neppell has a new site called Iraq Status Report, which is a joint project of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, The Institute for the Study of War, and The Long War Journal. Rob’s company, Kithbridge, helped put it together. It’s a one-stop-shop featuring some of the most highly regarded journalists and experts covering the conflict. Be sure to add it to your bookmarks.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
“Senior administration official?”
Oh, Ed. The MSM deals in anonymous sources, not blogs. Don’t be that guy. Just give us the dirt.
It was Cheney, wasn’t it? :)
Enrique on April 8, 2008 at 5:24 PM
Military Conflict
General Richard A. Cody graduated from West Point
in 1972, flew helicopters, ascended to command the storied 101stAirborne Division, and then, toward the end of his career, settled into management; now, at fifty-seven, he wears four stars as the ArmyVice-Chief of Staff. This summer, he will retire from military service.
In 2004, in a little-noted speech, Cody described the Army’s efforts to adapt to its new commitments. (It was attempting to fight terrorism, quell the Taliban, invade and pacify Iraq, and, at the same time, prepare for future strategic challenges, whether in China or Korea or Africa.) The endeavor was, Cody said, like “building an airplane in flight.”
Last week, the General appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee and testified that this method of engineering has failed. “Today’s Army is out of balance,” Cody said. He continued:
The current demand for our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan exceeds the sustainable supply, and limits our ability to provide ready forces for other contingencies. . . . Soldiers, families, support systems and equipment are stretched and stressed. . . . Overall, our readiness is being consumed as fast as we build it. If unaddressed, this lack of balance poses a significant risk to the all-volunteer force and degrades the Army’s ability to make a timely response to other contingencies.
In 2006, the Army granted eight thousand three hundred and thirty “moral waivers” to new recruits, meaning that it had accepted that number of volunteers with past criminal charges or convictions. The percentage of high-school graduates willing to serve is falling sharply from year to year; so are the aptitude-exam scores of new enlistees. To persuade soldiers and young officers to reënlist after overlong combat tours, the Army’s spending on retention bonuses increased almost ninefold from 2003 to 2006.
MB4 on April 8, 2008 at 5:30 PM
The rest of the Shi’ites in the south have little love for the Iranians, and the heavy hand of Tehran in the Basra fighting has exposed Sadr even further as a puppet of Iran.
That’s correct. Too many Americans have this idea that the Shia’s wanna become part of Iran, but in reality, they still hate the Iranians because of the Iran/Iraq war back in the 80’s. I’m sure Iran would LOVE to take over Basra when Hilpatine/Obamatron pulls our troops out too soon.
Tony737 on April 8, 2008 at 5:32 PM
There is, of course, empirical evidence of declining violence in Iraq, which has coincided with Petraeus’s command. The additional troops he requested have certainly been a factor, but not even Petraeus can say how much of one. At best, during the past year he has helped to piece together a stalemate of heavily armed, bloodstained, conspiracy-minded, ambiguously motivated Iraqi militias. Nobody knows how long this gridlock will hold.
A war born in spin has now reached its Lewis Carroll period. (“Now here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place.”) Last week, it proved necessary for the Bush Administration to claim that an obvious failure—Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s ill-prepared raid on rival Shiite gangs in Basra, which was aborted after mass desertions within Maliki’s own ranks—was actually a success in disguise, because it demonstrated the Iraqi government’s independence of mind.
MB4 on April 8, 2008 at 5:40 PM
I think we should skip Senate hearings and just go with blogger conference calls. :)
irishspy on April 8, 2008 at 5:40 PM
The suppression of professional military dissent helped to create the disaster in Iraq; now it is depriving American voters of an election-year debate about the defense issues that matter most. These include the nature and the location of the country’s global adversaries and interests, the challenge of a revitalizing Al Qaeda in Pakistan, the conundrum of Iran, the failing health of the nuclear nonproliferation regime, and, to address all this, the need for a sustainable strategy that restores the Army’s vitality and makes rational use of America’s finite military resources.
To implement such a strategy, it would not be necessary to rashly abandon Iraq to its fate, but it would be essential, at a minimum, to reduce American troop levels to well below a hundred thousand as soon as possible. In the long run, success or failure for the United States in Iraq will not hinge on who wins the argument about the surge; it will depend on whether it proves possible to change the subject.
MB4 on April 8, 2008 at 5:44 PM
Well that’s not what Hillary and Barack are saying.
sheesh on April 8, 2008 at 5:45 PM
From Drudge:
Obama Calls for Talks with Iran over Iraq
ninjapirate on April 8, 2008 at 5:46 PM
I get the impression that Maliki got his own personal ‘awakening’ about the extent and intent of Iran’s involvement in undermining Iraq. I think he really leaned towards a belief that Iran’s reason for being in Iraq was because of the US presence and he’s been caught between needing us there and needing us to leave. I think Basra opened his eyes that Iran’s been playing him like a fiddle. That seems to be in inference of both Crocker and Petraeus’ unspoken testimony about what happened in Basra.
Texas Gal on April 8, 2008 at 5:55 PM
MB4 – big blocks of italics are hard on the old eyes! Any other way to indicate you are quoting from your source?
RushBaby on April 8, 2008 at 5:56 PM
Italics don’t bother my eyes at all and I am only three days younger than dirt.
MB4 on April 8, 2008 at 6:04 PM
Um, we have an enemy who is calling for our death, and has attacked us…
Isn’t this what the Army is for? What “other contingencies” are we currently worried about? The Soviet Invasion of Europe? North Korea?
Yes, we have stress on our forces, but by any measureable method they are MORE combat effective today than when we entered Iraq. Better doctrine, Better equipment (especialy UAVs and data sharing), and a LARGE amount of combat Vets (which are the true backbone of any combat effective army).
Now, should we EXPAND the Army? IMO hell yeah… we armed MILLIONS of men in a couple of years in WWII, with NO real combat Vets to lead them… Now? Clone those Brigades (bump up NCOs and JOs and use them as leadership cadre for more units).
Romeo13 on April 8, 2008 at 6:05 PM
The Senate Committee seems to be filled with anti-war liberals. It’s almost like Petraeus and Crocker being interviewed by Daily Kos.
SoulGlo on April 8, 2008 at 6:08 PM
Guys, try the link at the beginning of MB4’s first post. It takes you to the author of most of the commentary – The New Yorker magazine. Not the most objective of sources, IMHO.
Longhorn Six on April 8, 2008 at 6:09 PM
OK, how’s this?
Testing 1,2,3 … …
.
.
*** A freeze in bringing US troops home is likely to be unpopular in the US, which has seen more than 4,000 soldiers killed in the conflict, now stretching into its sixth year.
The number of Iraqis killed in March climbed to 1,082, most of them civilians, the highest monthly figure reported by government ministries since August, confirming a resurgence in violence in recent months.
- WASHINGTON (AFP) ***
.
or this
.
— So far in April, American troop fatalities are running at the highest monthly rate since last September.
- Icasualties (Extract) —
MB4 on April 8, 2008 at 6:15 PM
The Muslim Invasion of Europe. The Mexican Invasion of the United States of America. North Korea.
aengus on April 8, 2008 at 6:18 PM
General Richard A. Cody is 7 ranks higher than I ever was, so I would give a listen to him.
Did you read his part?
Just how are we going to expand the Army? There is not going to be a draft.
MB4 on April 8, 2008 at 6:22 PM
So… it’s like saying:
success or failure … doesn’t depend on getting the drug dealers and whore houses out of the ‘hood…
instead it depends on whether it is possible to change to subject to snow removal and repairing pot holes in the streets ???
Did I get that correctly?
rockhauler on April 8, 2008 at 6:23 PM
hey I read that report too
But, when you get down to paragraph 8 you find this out:
“The government says 641 suspected insurgents were killed.”
Did you get that?
641 of those deaths were terrorists according to the Iraqi government.
If you check out the MNF-Iraq website you get similar numbers for March.
Maybe this explains why things seem calmer in Iraq?
Rather than reporting that there were 641 terrorists or insurgents killed in March the mainstream media twists the story to make it sound like the Allies and Iraqi forces are losing.
I thought you only get that kind of misinformation and/or outright lies at the kooks?
CaptainObvious on April 8, 2008 at 6:24 PM
No, no, no Gringo!!! That would just be us taking back what you stole from us and well … maybe a little bit more as interest. And with el Presidente Juan’s help it will not take any invasion anyway.
VinyFoxy on April 8, 2008 at 6:28 PM
Or the fact that because of the 641 Terrorist/Insurgents 441 civilians might be alive today.
Doogiesd on April 8, 2008 at 6:30 PM
Not really.
MB4 on April 8, 2008 at 6:30 PM
The waivers are usually for Kids who get in trouble with the law. Sometimes it is a adult with a 1st time DUI conviction… Not actual hardend criminals.
No their won’t be a draft. But even the Military isn’t dumb enough to not know that kids/yuong adults change and can be productive to society as they are helping them out as well.
upinak on April 8, 2008 at 6:31 PM
Excellent observation SG—–this being too close to election cycles here, most of the committee members are grandstanding for their districts. We could have major security stability in Iraq and 50k troops coming home and these morons would still find something to bitch about. It’s the nature of the beast. Tomorrow headlines in the major papers will be “Petraeus has failed to produce timelines expected by the democratic left—-political stabilization too slow”
Moving the goalpost is standard proceedure for our dear friends on the left who see nothing positive in Iraq.
Rovin on April 8, 2008 at 6:39 PM
The New Yorker…..now there’s a source with no bias and never goes for cheap embellishing of reality to suit their needs. All the bias that’s fit to print for the progressive intelligentsia.
Hening on April 8, 2008 at 6:39 PM
This new army is different than the one I was in. You are allowed to dissent now? Don’t like the plan, don’t like your orders, you don’t have to go?
Still managed to kill more of the enemy, than IA…
See the long wars journal.
was not aborted, the fight goes on. It is Sadr who wants to quit.
So we are not going to abandon the battle field in panic, instead we are going to form up, dress the lines, strike up the band, and march off the battle field while enemy forces applaud our valiant effort.
Yes MB4, I just don’t get it. You’ll have to explain it to me.
rockhauler on April 8, 2008 at 6:41 PM
So MB4 quotes extensively a guy (again a liberal) who wants universal health care, progressive tax so we can “strengthen our middle class”, sets up groups to study the effects that
global warmingclimate change (they just made that change a couple of months ago).MB4 loves those liberals…
Here’s a hint, when quoting extensively from some one, give them credit.
right2bright on April 8, 2008 at 6:42 PM
Government would be basically Maliki, right?
Did you get that?
“Suspected“.
Did you get that?
Actually I got it from *AFP via Yahoo News*. They must be kooks who are telling outright lies too, I suppose.
Now I am even starting to think that maybe General Richard A. Cody is a kook who is telling outright lies too.
Kooks telling outright lies seem to be all over the place!! We are being overrun by kooks telling outright lies!!!
I guess I should just believe whatever George says and just go with that.
MB4 on April 8, 2008 at 6:44 PM
Oh come off it. Bush is a liberal. “Iraqi moms and dads want freedom.” “Freedom is the desire of every human heart.” etc. etc. The whole democracy-building project is in actuality the spread of liberal universalism, by military force, to the whole world. Bush made this perfectly clear in his SOTU addresses.
aengus on April 8, 2008 at 6:49 PM
You are not going to believe this but I have found yet another case of kooks telling outright lies!
***March 6, 2008 · The Army released its annual mental health survey Thursday and found that one in five soldiers deployed to Iraq suffer from some mental health problem. For those on second and third deployments, about a third suffer from mental health problems. The Army medical command is now recommending well times to match time deployed — an initiative that’s opposed by the Bush administration.***
Oh no!!! I just noticed that that came from the U.S. Army!! My God, kooks telling outright lies have even taken over the U.S. Army!!! There are everywhere!!!
MB4 on April 8, 2008 at 6:50 PM
*** I like the asterixeses. Thank you :) ***
RushBaby on April 8, 2008 at 6:53 PM
Hahaha!
aengus on April 8, 2008 at 6:55 PM
What the he$$ are you babbling about now? Most of my excerpts were from and in connection with U.S. Army General Cody and the main link is in the second comment in this thread.
MB4 on April 8, 2008 at 6:58 PM
Read “Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam.” by H. R. Mcmaster sometime.
And before anyone says that Mcmaster is a kook telling outright lies, a bit of info -
***McMaster is a West Point graduate who earned a Silver Star for battlefield prowess during the 1991 Gulf War: his armored cavalry troop stumbled across an Iraqi mechanized brigade in the middle of a sandstorm and destroyed it.***
.
.
***The book assembled a damning case against senior military leaders for failing to speak their minds when, in the early years of the war, they disagreed with Pentagon policies.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff, knowing that Johnson and McNamara wanted uncritical support rather than honest advice, and eager to protect their careers, went along with official lies and a split-the-difference strategy of gradual escalation that none of them thought could work.
“Dereliction of Duty” won McMaster wide praise, and its candor inspired an ardent following among post-Vietnam officers.***
MB4 on April 8, 2008 at 7:11 PM
MB4 on April 8, 2008 at 7:11 PM
I still don’t think you are getting the point they are trying to make to you.
upinak on April 8, 2008 at 7:15 PM
Just because people continue to compare Iraq to Vietnam doesn’t make it true. If you’re going make a point about Iraq stick with Iraq and make your case.
terryannonline on April 8, 2008 at 7:26 PM
Haha…Just brings the quacks into this and it will be a problem for generations. Admiral Hyman Rickover, the renowned father of the nuclear navy said of shipyard employees that they didn’t have mental problems associated with stress until we told them that they had problems…Yes, there will be vets who have trouble adjusting to the stress but one in five??? Real soldiers and Marines, sailors and airmen are glad that they didn’t miss the most significant combat action in a generation. It obviously stresses you out to hear about their heroics so I suggest that you might limit your intake of news and perhaps consult your doctor…
Nozzle on April 8, 2008 at 7:35 PM
Real Men don’t suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder?
aengus on April 8, 2008 at 7:45 PM
Most of the comparisons that I have seen on HA are with Germany and Japan. Maybe you should get on that.
MB4 on April 8, 2008 at 7:47 PM
Of course not. You and I both know that Audie Murphy must not have been a real man. We thought he was, but now we know better.
MB4 on April 8, 2008 at 7:49 PM
BTW Nozzle, Murphy could have kicked Rickover’s a$$.
MB4 on April 8, 2008 at 7:52 PM
Coming back from the Gulf war in 1991, the Navy contracted with some psycologists who were flown out to our ship for counseling…I think one or two guys got laid but other than that it was a waste of taxpayer’s dollars…Now, we have females on ships so we don’t need taxpayer funded psycologists…Just sayin.
Nozzle on April 8, 2008 at 7:52 PM
The point the anti-Iraq-campaign folks never see, doubtless because they don’t want to see, is that Iraq is about the whole Middle East, not just Iraq. The ‘war’ (it’s actually a pacification campaign; the war was over when Saddam fell) has been just a club to beat George W. Bush over the head with.
A stable, US ally in Iraq will be perfectly positioned to help us control Iran, prevent the further radicalization of the region, protect the Gulf and the free flow of oil, and keep the pressure on al Qaida and their ilk.
If some future Democrat in the White House wants to pull out of Iraq, we will ipso facto have to abandon those goals. Is that the aim of the so-called Democratic Party?
Assuming we don’t end up with fools controlling the White House and Congress (a rash assumption, to be sure), we are not leaving Iraq to fall into the hands of Iran and al Qaida. So we aren’t leaving, period.
MrLynn on April 8, 2008 at 7:55 PM
Well I haven’t seen anyone mention Germany or Japan in this post. It’s only you that is bringing up past conflicts.
terryannonline on April 8, 2008 at 7:55 PM
One thing I noticed during the testimony today Patraeus was sitting there hearing Senators (whom most voted for the war) lecturing General Patreaus (who had no say in the matter)about what a mistake it was. Talk about the irony!
terryannonline on April 8, 2008 at 7:58 PM
I believe that HA has more than one post a year. There have, in fact, been a number comparing Iraq to Germany and Japan in the past few days. I don’t seem to recall you commenting on them to stick to Iraq. In any case, how about you dance to your drummer and I will dance to mine.
MB4 on April 8, 2008 at 7:59 PM
MB4
I have Read McMaster’s book “Dereliction of Duty”. I have a copy on my book shelf to my immediate left.
How does anything in that book apply to any of my comments above? Especially since the new ’surge’ strategy developed by Gen. Petraeus explicitly avoids the mistakes identified by McMaster; i.e. attempting to win a ground war by air power, ‘graduated pressure’ as expressed by McNamara and Cyrus Vance, failing to hold territory once VC/NVA had been driven out, failing to protect civilian population from predation from VC/NVA.
I’m wondering what conclusions you reached after reading it?
rockhauler on April 8, 2008 at 7:59 PM
MB4 on April 8, 2008 at 7:59 PM
Are you speaking on terms of history or logistics. Because they aren’t really that simular in historical aspects either.
Unless you want to clarify?
upinak on April 8, 2008 at 8:02 PM
Iraqi-centric belief system:
1) All roads start in Iraq.
2) All roads end in Iraq.
3) The Sun revolves around Iraq.
4) The moon revolves around Iraq.
5) The stars revolve around Iraq.
6) If the United States does not keep sufficient troop mass in Iraq, the orbital stability of the Earth will become unbalanced and all Muslim terrorists will slide into America.
MB4 on April 8, 2008 at 8:03 PM
I’m curious do want Iraq to turn out like Vietnam?
terryannonline on April 8, 2008 at 8:03 PM
MB4, Murphy could most definitely have kicked Rickover’s a$$…But, what does that have to do with psycologists trying to undermine the mental health of our combatants. One in five soldiers having mental health issues is a ridiculous figure. I’m sure today’s quacks would have a field day analyzing George Patton. I’m sure they could write books and make millions trying to figure out what suppressed need he fulfilled killing Germans by the truckload…
Nozzle on April 8, 2008 at 8:05 PM
MB4 on April 8, 2008 at 8:03 PM
where does afghaninstan fit in to this equation?
upinak on April 8, 2008 at 8:05 PM
All wars have similarities and differences with other wars.
Iraq is much more similar to Vietnam than it is to Germany or Japan.
MB4 on April 8, 2008 at 8:07 PM
No what we’re saying a possible genocide my occur if we live. Do you not care at all? It’s not Iraqi-centric, it’s a REAL reality. Thinking that the sooner we leave Iraq that all will be well and rosy and all terrorist will cease to exist is grounded in complete fantasy.
terryannonline on April 8, 2008 at 8:09 PM
Take it up with the U.S. Army. It is their report.
MB4 on April 8, 2008 at 8:09 PM
MB4 on April 8, 2008 at 8:07 PM
No it isn’t. I do not see Jungle in the desert. I do not see our Military ticked off to no end for being there, as Nam had quite a few due to the draft. I DO see you trying to make this a “wannabe Vietnam” war.
Sorry no can do. Iraq … compared to Germany (WWI and WWII), Japan(WWII) and even Vietnam… as well as Korea (Forgotten War)… has no way the same start, deaths, POW’s or MIA’s, weapons, FOOD, human spirit as any other war.
You, sir, need to stop comparing. Maybe go speak to a Veitnam Vet, a WWII or Korean War Vet since the last American WWI Vet is not doing so well. You might Learn Something about then that is NOT in the Here and Now!
upinak on April 8, 2008 at 8:13 PM
So the Sunnis and the Shiites in Iraq are going to genocide each other? The same Sunnis and Shiites that Bush and McCain think are going to get along well enough to build a nation together? Cognitive dissonance if I ever heard it.
P.S., AQI was estimated to have between a few hundred and one to two thousand a few months ago and many have been reported killed since then, so there would not be nearly enough of them to do a genocide.
Where did I say “the sooner we leave Iraq that all will be well and rosy and all terrorist will cease to exist”?
Answer – nowhere.
MB4 on April 8, 2008 at 8:17 PM
Well did anyone in this post say this
Answer-nowhere.
If you’re be throwing extreme arguments, expect to have some thrown back at ya!
terryannonline on April 8, 2008 at 8:20 PM
I have spoken to lots of Vietnam vets.
I am one.
MB4 on April 8, 2008 at 8:26 PM
Which is probably about 5 thousand less then the Navy grants on an annual basis!
These waivers can run the gamut from being ticketed for fishing without a license to shoplifting. I wouldn’t try to jump to the conclusion that we are suddenly drafting Bloods and Crips out of their cells.
Just A Grunt on April 8, 2008 at 8:32 PM
Your statement was not an argument. It was an absurd accusation.
Maybe Hillary can use “extreme arguments” next time she “misspeaks”.
MB4 on April 8, 2008 at 8:32 PM
I don’t believe that anyone is saying that.
I am beginning to notice a number of strawmen in some of the comments lately. Or maybe I should say “extreme arguments” or “misspeaks”.
MB4 on April 8, 2008 at 8:37 PM
I didn’t attend my post to come off as an accusation, I apologize. Ok, if we are using strawmen, wasn’t your post at 8:03 also a strawmen?
terryannonline on April 8, 2008 at 8:41 PM
MB4 on April 8, 2008 at 8:26 PM
For a Vietnam Vet… you seriously have some issues with the war you were in compared to the one going on now.
I actually ride with the Vietnam Vets Motorcycle Club up here. And none of the feel the way you do concerning this war. They know it is different. They know it is NOT Vietnam. They also understand there is a higher stake.
As I would walk up to you and shake your hand and Thank You for the service you gave to this country, if you were drafted or not. You do not understand these wars.
upinak on April 8, 2008 at 9:02 PM
And thank you for your service.
terryannonline on April 8, 2008 at 9:08 PM
Never apologize. I don’t. No reason for you to.
It was suppose to be satire.
MB4 on April 8, 2008 at 9:23 PM
No need. I charged them for it.
MB4 on April 8, 2008 at 9:25 PM
Freudian Slip of the Day?
aengus on April 8, 2008 at 9:44 PM
Thanks for your cogent, on-topic analysis. And thanks to Captain Ed for keeping us informed with current facts and balanced commentary.
onlineanalyst on April 8, 2008 at 9:57 PM
Thanks, online. Good to see you here.
(OT: On this site, I’m puzzled how to keep track of threads I’ve participated in, and how to find my place in them, when comments number in the hundreds sometimes. There’s no e-notification, so no link back. Anyone have a system?)
MrLynn on April 8, 2008 at 11:29 PM
And so with a lame attempt at reductio ad absurdam satire, you dismiss the entirely rational argument that it is in the vital interest of the United States to maintain peace, stability, and a Western presence in the Middle East—and in particular, to prevent Iran and al Qaida from taking over Iraq, Iraqi oil, and controlling the Persian Gulf.
If the United States left Iraq, genocide would be the least of the disasterous consequences. Just imagine al Qaida with those oil riches.
MrLynn on April 8, 2008 at 11:37 PM
Here’s more information from a message from MNF-Iraq. The US and Allied Forces not only do the best reporting on what is happening in Iraq but they don’t have any terrorist stringers on their payroll:
I do not have confirmed enemy killed statistics for March, yet, but initial reports indicate that it is more than 375.
But the 1,082 isn’t based on our data.
But hey if you think the men and women on the ground are less reliable than groups that have a proven track record of agenda driven nonfactual reporting then so be it.
Interesting because I dont see anywhere that Gen Cody has stated too many civilian Iraqis have died (which is what I was addressing) but from your next post (addressed below) I see you are all about changing to a different topic to attack me.
By the way Here is more information on the death toll from SGT Nicole Dykstra, Press Desk NCO- Communications Division:
The numbers do include bodies found in mass graves, however, it depends on when they think the bodies were killed.
I dont seem to find anywhere where I addressed mental health problems of US soldiers do you. But thanks for filling me in on how dire that is. I only had to wrestle my father from my mother when I was 10 when he awoke one day thinking she was an NVA with a grenade. Its not like I would know anything about mental health problems though; right. knock me over with a feather.
well you quoted an opinion piece by some guy that sits at his computer all day wishing for hope and change so it seems you want us to believe what the keyboard warrior has to say and just go with that…..
oh look shiny objects…..
CaptainObvious on April 8, 2008 at 11:58 PM
Err…does that mean that if we put many more troops into Iraq, the Earth will tilt the other way and all the terrorists slide out of America? :)
OldEnglish on April 9, 2008 at 12:35 AM
Well I had a lot in the U.S. Army fooled pretty good then.
But then what did they know, probably none of them belonged to a motorcycle club. That was probably how I was able to fool them.
MB4 on April 9, 2008 at 2:36 AM
Juan McSurgo seems to think so. But it could take as much as a hundred years though.
MB4 on April 9, 2008 at 2:41 AM
Don’t be paranoid and get over yourself as you are not that important to me anyway.
I don’t see any rules that say that I have to wait for you to address something specific before I do. Where is that rule? Are you a royal? Are you even a Captain for that matter?
Again, what I think that you are referring to anyway is what I quoted from AFP via Yahoo news.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080408/pl_afp/iraq_080408160515
What I looked at did not even have a reporter’s name on it. How do you even know it’s a guy? How do you know that he “sits at his computer all day wishing for hope and change”? Maybe he hopes for a beer or a change in his sex life? How do you know that he is a keyboard warrior? Are you psychic?
Shouldn’t he (or her) be for the war if he is a keyboard warrior anyway? How could he be a keyboard warrior if he is against the war? Maybe he is for the war?
MB4 on April 9, 2008 at 3:12 AM
Lame? Reductio absurdum?
I thought it was rather clever and spot on myself.
Remember the 80’s war between Iran and Iraq? Did we end up any worse off due to millions of fanatics on both sides getting killed? Remember the 60’s proxy war between Egypt and Saudi Arabia in Yemen? Was that a good or bad thing for Infidels?
If there were to be an internecine war between Infidel hating Muslims and Infidel hating Muslims, why is that a bad thing for Infidels? If two or more of our enemies are busy destroying each other, why should we even bother stopping them?
(HT: JihadWatch – InfidelPride)
So are you saying that you think that we should have left Saddam in power?
Iran and al Qaida? Maybe you need to have Joe whisper in your ear too, like he whispered in Juan’s. Iran – Shiite. Al Q – Sunni.
That sounds even more apocalyptic than Al Gores chicken-little Global Warming. Maybe you and he could team up?
MB4 on April 9, 2008 at 3:33 AM
MB4 on April 9, 2008 at 3:33 AM:
Saddam was an effective counterweight to Iran, which is why we provided him with intel during the Iraq-Iran war. And while he cooperated with al Qaida in the ’90s, he never would have let them take over his country.
But Saddam was too dangerous, especially after the Clinton-era somnambulism was jolted awake by September 11th and it became apparent that he could do tremendous damage if he started funneling WMDs to al Qaida.
So now we are the counterweight.
I guess you haven’t heard: Iran is perfectly happy supporting Sunni Islamofascists when it suits them. And I’m sure they’d be delighted to take over southern Iraq, and leave the rest for al Qaida.
MrLynn on April 9, 2008 at 9:46 AM
A lot of the “mental health issues” that warriors experience is due to the fact that they have seen human nature without the refining veneer of civility. They have been made painfully aware of what humans – all humans – are capable of, the darkness that is within, and they return from a world where adrenaline is flowing through their blood to the more sedate world of suburbia and when they look around and see all of these smiling faces without a care in the world they know that it wouldn’t take too much to strip them of their innocence and ignorance. People are afraid of the darkness because everyone is peripherally aware of it and war brings it too close to home.
Thank God for those men and women willing to risk their lives for the rest of us to live in relative peace.
Blight on April 9, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Comment pages: