It has been nice. Been a lot less shots in my direction since the end of the battle in Basra. If the Iraqi Army can settle into the grove here, I think they won’t need quite so many of us CF here. Give them a bit more time and everyone getting used to peace and the violence may recede to a simple “Middle East politics” level.

And for those,who have sacrificed in the name
of Freedom.:)

He won battles in the war of 1812 (Lundy’s lane and others). Defeated Mexico with only 8000 men in the Mexican American War (securing Texas and acquiring California, New Mexico and Arizona) and was the author of the strategic plan for defeating the South in the Civil War which was ultimately successful. Not to mention his great work with West Point and seeing to it that successful young West Point gradualtes like Lee, Grant, Johnston and Jackson got the chance to show their stuff in the Mexican American War and thus were prepared to be the Great Generals of the Civil War.

In the tour of Fort Erie, the Canadian docent referred Winfield Scott as the Greatest American General ever. Nice compliment from the other side of the fight.

What could the US and Western forces have achieved if the focus had remained on Afghanistan, beyond the US retaining far broader support on the international scene? That’s something we’ll never know. When Afghanistan was invaded, the goal was to transform it into a democracy free of the warlords and narcotics.

bayam on September 21, 2008 at 8:04 PM

If US forces remained in Afghanistan and not expanded the war into Iraq, then we would have been in the same situation as was the USSR was when it invaded Afghanistan. For lack of a better word, we leveled the playing field. By going into Iraq, an Arab country and with significant Islamic religious interests, the extremist found this more of an emotional calling than a non-Arab Afghanistan.

I do not believe it was the goal of the Afghanistan invasion was to transform it into a democracy, although that would have been part of any post war reconstruction, the goal was to get Bin Laden and crush the Taliban government. One was achieved, the other is still pending. Bin Laden said it himself that the focus on the war is in Iraq against the US occupation. Thus the war was brought to Bin Ladin and his Al Qaeda. As for Afghanistan, it was never off the radar screen, it just didn’t get the attention like Iraq did until now and we don’t know what’s been going on behind the scenes.. The origins of the Islamic extremism did manifest itself from a multitude of countries where this disease metastatic into what we know it now. It has spread to many countries.

I don’t believe Pakistan has either the political will or stomach to go after the Islamic terrorist. It’s all lip service. But I do believe the monster has been cornered, or at least we have restricted their movement to freely move from one country to another.

Do we have more or less terrorist in the world today? As I mentioned before, they’re breeding them. It will be generational until such a time, as Golda Meir once said, [The Arabs] will stop fighting us when they love their children more than they hate [Jews]“. As long as we have the fortitude to continue keep them looking over their shoulder wondering if a hellfire missile isn’t already in their sights, then it’ll be a numbers game till one of us wins this war. I don’t intend to let them win.

Same old Lib-Dem talking points. What’s new? What’s new is we’ve done the job in Iraq and it’s time to eliminate the Islamic Fascists in Afghanistan

;-)

Good article!

What I think, to Bush’s credit, was to take the war to Iraq. A risky strategy that seems to be working. It became the focal point and battle cry, of the Islamic extremist and Al Qaeda, which funneled the extremist en mass to Iraq.

Of course, the case against the war in Iraq (among non peaceniks) is that the US had to turn most of its military and resources away from Afghanistan. The Islamic extremsists were not only flowing en messe into Afghanistan- many originated from that part of the world. Afghanistan and Pakistan were essentially the home countries of Islamic terrorism.

As a result, bin Laden remains free while Afghanistan has largely descended into the chaos of the world’s biggest narco state where brutal warlords rule areas beyond the capital region. This outcome was only inevitable once the US made Iraq it’s primary focus. Now that Musharef is gone, it’s not clear that there’s the political will in Pakistan to go after militants in the border regions, so our chances of success in beheading the Islamofascist monster don’t look very promising anytime soon.

Iraq wasn’t where al Qaeda and the extremists groups originated. While it’s true that Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, and other countries had an operating al Qaeda and/or terrorist presence, Pakistan and Afghanistan were the true center of gravity. What could the US and Western forces have achieved if the focus had remained on Afghanistan, beyond the US retaining far broader support on the international scene? That’s something we’ll never know. When Afghanistan was invaded, the goal was to transform it into a democracy free of the warlords and narcotics.

One fact reamins- there’s no sign today that the number of terrorists in the world has been decreased. As Rumsfled used to ask, have we killed more terrorists or created more terrorists? Does this indicate a problem with our overall strategy? I don’t have the answers, but it’s troubling reality.

If you don’t credit Petraeus (and by extension Bush) with also having that as a goal for the surge, then you have missed the essential part of this story.

You can read the The War Inside for answers to this question. It’s hard to quote specific text without key points being taken out of context in a short message post.

Why did so many people assume that Iraqi Sunnis would not get as tired of war and futile, stupid al Qaeda suicide bombings as we did?

The Sunnis and Shittes have enjoyed killing each other for thousands of years and it’s hard to say that the trend is over. Nor was it clear how far the Sunnis would go to rid the country of al Qaeda given their mutual hatred of the Shiite enemy. It’s still not clear if the Sunnis and Shiites can live peacefully together.
Al Qaeda could never steal a page from Hezbollah and start opening schools and medical centers to build a bond with the population. Fortunately al Qaeda fighters are nothing more than the scum of the earth and incapable of building any kind of community.

In other words, the surge worked but for none of the reasons that anyone initally assumed. It’s truly a remarkable history.

bayam on September 21, 2008 at 1:50 PM

No, the surge worked because we brought the fight to them. It helped that AQ was so hard on the Iraqis that they also turned against them and with the surge they knew they would not be abandoned by us [think back to Vietnam 1975 and a Democratic Congress killing all of President Ford's attempt to help South Vietnam with military aid].

A paramilitary force like AQ cannot last against a professional military; what they can only do is hope to outlast the will to fight of the latter’s political masters.

As Barrack bin Laden has no will to fight AQ, he would have left Iraqis to AQ

I don’t know….have they suddenly started ice skating in Hell?

And when did it cease to be called “Bush’s surge?” The press used to love to call it “Bush’s surge,” (Google it) but now it’s just “the surge.” I wonder what could have happened to make the difference….

This one’s simple. When a mother asks her husband (or baby daddy anyway) “Do you know what your son did?”, you can bet your @$$ it wasn’t any good, but if she talks about “my son”, or even “our son” it’s followed by something good.

Since Bush can’t possibly have done something good, it’s “Bush’s failed policy of…” but “our brave military’s successes…”.

Yes, but the reason behind sending in more troops wasn’t simply to force insurgents out of key areas, it was also to facilitate that broader “awakening” of Iraqi citizens to throw down the insurgency.

Exactly.

Restore order, work with the populace, and help them turn against the insurgents.

That it worked better than they foresaw doesn’t mean they didn’t anticipate it.

You might want to read The Inside War to address the ignorance you try and place on others.

You might want to reread your own posts. For example, your statement:

the surge worked but for none of the reasons that anyone initally assumed.

contradicts your other statement:

You’re right about the general’s overall framework for winning an insurgency

I think what you should say is simply “the surge worked better than Patraeus could have predicted” and I would agree; but the framework, the goals, and how they expected the Iraqi citizens to respond is textbook counter-insurgency. Instead you seem to think the surge’s goal was only the following:

The idea behind sending in more troops was to force insurgents out of key areas but what actually occurred was far broader and something that no one anticipated.

Yes, but the reason behind sending in more troops wasn’t simply to force insurgents out of key areas, it was also to facilitate that broader “awakening” of Iraqi citizens to throw down the insurgency.

If you don’t credit Petraeus (and by extension Bush) with also having that as a goal for the surge, then you have missed the essential part of this story.

I was convinced that the war had been badly mismanaged through mid 2006 and opposed Bush because of his failure, but did fully support the surge.

bayam on September 21, 2008 at 1:48 PM

I agree the war was poorly managed, but how do you manage any war properly?

What I think, to Bush’s credit, was to take the war to Iraq. A risky strategy that seems to be working. It became the focal point and battle cry, of the Islamic extremist and Al Qaeda, which funneled the extremist en mass to Iraq. The dynamics of either not doing anything or fighting a war are pretty clear to me: we either continue to be attacked or kill the attackers before the can attack. That’s not to say we will never ever be attacked again, but I would hope we’ll be better prepared to prevent any future attack. So far, that seems to have worked.

So there is less of them, Islamic extremist and Al Qaeda, and more of us, those that would rather live in peace. I do not think the Islamic world is that stupid not to think that Islamic extremist organizations like Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and other Neofascism religious Islamic groups are good for Islam, its world image, or as a whole. If they do, then they are destine to live in a world of violence and war. Which means the practice of training children in the ways of Wahhabism and other extremist sects of Islam threaten to repeat and encourage generations of martyrs to be. It begs the question if Islam really wants to live in peace with the rest of the world. Let alone the superficial appearance or illusion of anything resembling a religion of peace.

NYT must-read: A calm Iraq, unrecognizable
…

George Marshall

The NYT shows a newly pacified and hopeful Iraq. Progressive analysts insist it isn’t our fault….

In other words, the surge worked but for none of the reasons that anyone initally assumed. It’s truly a remarkable history

Sorry, but that’s just not my reading of what happened.

None of the reasons? The theory behind the surge was to work with the Iraqi people and draw them away from both the militias and support for Al-Qaeda. By restoring order, the Iraqis would turn away from supporting those groups in order to defend themselves from other sectarian or tribal enemies.

That it worked more then they has anticipated is undoubtedly true. But to claim that surge worked for “none of the reasons” predicted is, in my readings, not accurate.