<p>[JS</a> Online: Associated Press News](<a href=“http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_WINNING_THE_WAR?SITE=WIMIL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT]JS”>http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_WINNING_THE_WAR?SITE=WIMIL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)</p>
<p>Yea, I read it. I’m not convinced it’s something that’s going to last.</p>
<p>Obama is right, there is no military solution. From here on out, it’s about political reconciliation–which is something that is more difficult to achieve than decreasing the level of violence.</p>
<p>You can’t just withdrawal all the troops and rely soley on diplomacy. That rarely ever works.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It doesn’t have to be one of the other. It can be a combination of the two which is what Obama has been advocating since he entered the Senate.</p>
<p>Best news I’ve had all day - even better than hearing that the polls are tightening in key states! Thanks for posting Barrons.</p>
<p>Newjack - why so “doom & gloomy”? (post #2) Have faith!</p>
<p>Last I heard it was 11 out of 18 provinces turned over to Iraqi forces.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think Obama has been advocating ANY use of troops in Iraq, has he?</p>
<p>Well, maybe lately.</p>
<p>I know at one point he wanted a total military withdrawal. Perhaps he has changed his tune once he was brought up to speed. I don’t know.</p>
<p>In a perverse sort of way, the subprime lending and asset bubble funded the W’s war.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s realistic.</p>
<p>He NEVER wanted a complete withdrawal of all troops. He did want all combat brigades, but his plan has consistently left a “counter-terrorism” unit. The number of troops that would stay in the counter-terrorism unit is unknown and that may change, but I know he has always advocated leaving behind said unit.</p>
<p>I’ll leave now.</p>
<p>The so-called “surge” (really, just an increase in hostile, aggressive occupying forces) had a specific content. First, was the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad - 600,000 additional people (including, by the way, virtually all the remaining Christians) made homeless, to join the more than 4,000,000 already refugees, under U.S. supervision. Once the ethnic cleansing was complete, the U.S. contracted, with U.S. funds, to build walls dividing two-thirds of the city, making virtually impossible for individuals to travel from one sector to another. The 5,000,000 refugees are the equivalent of taking the entire population of the U.S. west of Texas and making them homeless, and send roughly half of them to Mexico. As the reporters note, even Baghdad 8 months ago is not the same Baghdad.</p>
<p>The second part was the arming of 113,000 Sunni insurgents and putting them on the U.S. payroll. Having armed Al-Qaeda in Iraq in 2004-2005, the U.S. now armed the other side of the conflict in Anbar and surrounding provinces. If/when the U.S. leaves, unless these armed insurgents are kept on the U.S. payroll, one can expect that the U.S. has set up the conditions for a full civil war.</p>
<p>The third part was providing military training to the pro-Iranian government of Maliki, in the hopes that, once Al-Sadr was neutralized, Maliki would invite a permanent occupation, with permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq.</p>
<p>I think, regardless of who becomes President, 18 months from now we will look back at the so-called “surge” as an unmitigated disaster. (It already is for some 20% of Iraq’s population.)</p>
<p>Blah Blah Blah. Civil War… That civil war has been written about for how long now?? Eventually you might be right. Keep the faith that bad things will happen.</p>
<p>The success is primarily due to the political switch - mainly, the Sunnis deciding that it was better for them to side w/ us (and get paid in the process).</p>
<p>Otoh, it’ll be much more difficult doing the same w/ the Pashtuns (both in Afghanistan and Pakistan).</p>
<p>Basically, we have pushed the Pashtuns together (normally, they would be fighting/bickering w/ each other) and the “collateral damage” certainly doesn’t help (since they have a culture where revenge and honor is of prime importance - as experienced by the British when they ruled the Indian subcontinent).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Obama that’s running for president? Nope – he claims he was against military intervention in Iraq from the beginning. How can he be against military intervention and for a military/diplomatic solution at the same time? Unless you engage is some really aerobic sophistry, inserting people with guns is military action.</p>
<p>Of course, having seen some of his more megalomaniacal comments on video, I can see how he can hold two utterly opposed concepts in his head and believe both at the same time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Both ways Obama.</p>
<p>I still believe that the Iraq war was a bad idea, but we couldn’t just withdraw and leave the Iraqi citizens under the influence if Iran, that could be worse. I am glad that McCain had the judgement to tell Bush to change strategy even though the war was unpopular at that time.</p>
<p>McCain, country first.</p>
<p>I’m still wondering why we have military forces in Germany and Japan. Why not bring them home first?</p>
<p>Things keep pointing to it.</p>
<p>[JS</a> Online: Associated Press News](<a href=“http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_US_BASES?SITE=WIMIL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT]JS”>http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_US_BASES?SITE=WIMIL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uhh, Iraq’s central govt. IS under the influence of Iran (Maliki’s governing coalition is made up of 2 major Shia Islamist parties/militias which were in exile in Iran when Saddam was in power).</p>
<p>Now, that’s not to say that Maliki is totally beholden to Iran - he is astutely playing us off against the Iranians (and the Iraqi Shias are Arabs and not Persians) - but note how Iran is largely getting its influence using “soft power.”</p>
<p>McCain still thinks we could have won Vietnam if we had just the fortitude to escalte troop strength - along w/ willing to bomb w/o reservation targets in NV.</p>
<p>He still doesn’t get why we “lost” Vietnam.</p>