More good news in Iraq

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I don't understand why we can't watch/read a positive story about Iraq without making it a partisan issue or even acknowledging the positive events.

This isn't a partisan issue..

Not sure why you think it's a partisan issue? You stated "Iraq was getting safer" yet there is no evidence of it. That has nothing to do with Democrat/Republican crap.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Not sure why you think it's a partisan issue? You stated "Iraq was getting safer" yet there is no evidence of it. That has nothing to do with Democrat/Republican crap.

Responses in this thread have made it a partisan issue.

[Scrum]

So if we are walking back into a city of 2 million and everything is roses and backrubs, why don't we leave and let them handle things?

They obviously know how to quell the violence better than we do if they pulled this off.

[DosEquis]

McCain called this wackamole. One area is great for awhile, it pops up some place else.

[grembert]

I have made some negative comments about the Iraq situation, but still hope for the best. Maybe the surge will work. The latest news is something to be thankful for.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I'm sorry, I don't understand your reasoning.

The Sadrists, insurgents by their own accord, are not fighting at the moment simply because we 'asked them to lay down their arms' during the US surge?!!!

Does that method work with ALL enemies?

No, not because of the US, because Malaki and Sadr asked them not to fight.

You should know this.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I don't understand why we can't watch/read a positive story about Iraq without making it a partisan issue or even acknowledging the positive events.

This isn't a partisan issue..

Because the GOP and Bush Administration INSISTS on making it a partisan issue!

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

Because the GOP and Bush Administration INSISTS on making it a partisan issue!

We are not above the Bush administratrion. I would think the people criticizing the Bush administration wouldn't stoop to their levels and do the same thing they criticize them for.

I don't understand why people can't just read a good story in Iraq and either ignore it or attack the GOP because of it, or a combination of both.

[Donkey®]

Yep...more good news.


Qaeda-led militants storm Iraq jail, free 140 - Yahoo! News

Originally Posted by article

MOSUL, Iraq (Reuters) - Dozens of al Qaeda-led militants stormed an Iraqi jail in the northern city of Mosul on Tuesday and freed up to 140 prisoners in one of the biggest prison breaks since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, police said.

As many as 300 militants led by Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, leader of the self-styled Islamic State in
Iraq, attacked Mosul's northwestern Badoush prison just after sunset in the ethnically mixed city and overwhelmed police, who were forced to call the U.S. military for backup, officials said.

Hisham al-Hamdani, a member of the Mosul provincial government, said Abu Omar al-Baghdadi took part in the attack himself. The Islamic State in Iraq is a body set up by al Qaeda's Iraq wing and other Sunni militant groups in October.

Most of the prisoners were believed to be insurgents, police said.

It was unclear if there were any clashes between gunmen and police during the incident.

Saddam Hussein's nephew, Ayham Sabawi, escaped the same prison in December after he was accused of financing the Sunni insurgency against U.S. forces and the Shi'ite-led government.

I can't take all this good news...

[motivez]

We negotiated with them for months to be allowed into the city. It'll be interesting to see what happens moving forward as the insurgency adjusts their tactics..

Like I've pointed out, this isn't a new tactic or a new strategy, it's something that's done several times a year.. especially around various Islamic holidays.

And as I said in the last thread though, this has been standard procedure for every other surge we've had. Violence will decrease in areas where troop levels are expected to rise (or have already risen) while the violence continues elsewhere.

I really hope it works this time, I do. But I'm very skeptical considering nothing has changed, and in every other part of the country where the surge was supposed to be taking place, it's been American forces taking the lead, again.. and not Iraqi units like we were promised.

I don't see how that moves us closer to being able to get out of there.

[avsp]

I must admit to being surprised that tjhe Sadhrists have allowed operations within Sadr City

Motivez is correct about the historical wackamole problems, ..., we'll have to wait & see how the Surge pans out. Kagan & Petreaus claim that they'll have enough troops to hold cleared areas. I doubt they have but I'd love to be proved wrong

I'm well wary about the use of Kurdish troops in Bagdhad tho'.

The important things to remember are, like Bush said in the surge announcement speech, its going to take a long time & its going to cost the lives of many troops. Also there is little real alternative.

So, its the number of attacks & their geographical spread that measures the success or otherwise, ..., not the number of dead.

The initial bunch of reports seem toi show up the extremely poor state of the Iraqi Police who do not owe alliegence to the state but to various other groupings, (party/cleric/tribe), as such & seem to see themselves as some kind of new Mukhabarat.

It does seem as if the Mahdi army has been stood down. Does this mean that Sadhr feels his position is secure & that a CoW withdrawal will allow him to seize full control?

If so, what does this mean for other factions within Iraq?

It already seems as if CoW forces are there to protect the lives of former regime loyalists, it would just add to the irony if Sadhr becomes an ally for stability whilst other (less extreme?) factions try to bomb CoW into staying

Seemingly everything about this war is upsidedown/back to front, ..., which just goes to show, eh?

I also like it that Rice is now prepared to talk with Iran & Syria

The idiocy of the partisan approach to this issue seems to be becoming ever more obvious, ..., GOOD!

[David Octavius]

To me the central issue is that our congress gave the President such broad powers to make war in 2002. They should learn that any conflict any Administration wants to get into must have an object (ie Iraq) and a clear unambiguous objective (overthrow the dictator), thus a war on terror is inferior grounds for war. After that, the President ceases to have increased power that is afforded to him during war and we return to the normalcy of representative government in which the President must justify another war or to extend this one. This is to ensure that one person or a small group of people do not make all the decisions for such an important matter, for the war they administer may cloud their judgment (those who have a vested interest in a thing can be biased without knowing it) or being human can simply be wrong sometimes. It also serves as a cooling off period to slow down passions back to a more rational position.

To say we are in a different type of war because its against terrorists is baloney, the REPUBLIC has the powers and resources to deal with it - our President has the power of our bureaucracies to root out terrorism (legally) within our nation and other nations and with the consent of congress, commit troops to conflicts to punish terrorist nations if diplomacy doesn't work.

[grembert]

I agree completely with the statement that Congress gave Bush too much power back in 2002. The same thing happened in the Vietnam War with the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. After all, according to the Constitution, Congress has the power to wage war.
I want to make one more point about the larger picture ( I hope this doesn't end the thread because whenever I write something about Iraq evrything stops )
Both Democrats and Republicans need to do some planning If we do not set some kind of timetable on our occupation, we become like the parents who say of their lazy son, " We will continue supporting our boy until he grows up and gets a job. " What do you think will happen then ?
It is not so important how far in the future the plan is, or how much we are responsible for what has happened. Somebody needs to step forward and start talking about some kind of withdrawal plan. That shouldn't be a partisan issue. And it was suggested by the Iraq Study group last year.

[Thorgrim]

The Sadrists know they can just bribe or threaten the iraqi army units that get stationed there into being like the iraqi police...ineffective...once the surge stops...

[JaJae]

al Jazeera says it's getting better...

ndications that the new U.S. military strategy in Iraq is starting to improve conditions in Baghdad came from an unlikely source Wednesday -- the Qatar-based al Jazeera television network.

"I was just earlier this afternoon [Iraq time] with Al Jazeera English, talking to their reporter," Multi-National Force spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell told Cybercast News Service from Baghdad.

"She gets downtown [Baghdad] a lot. She was the one who told me, 'You know, General, there's a real change in the city right now.' And I said, 'Well, I can't tell you I definitely know that.'

"But she said, 'No, there is. I'm down there all the time, and there's a positive change in the city. The people are feeling like something is different - not able to articulate exactly what's different, but they're feeling that something is different.'"

[Thorgrim]

With all the radical groups retreating...it'd be pretty hard for it not to get better in ONE CITY...but again, like McCain once said, its "whackamole" now shia are either waiting around or are active in other areas...Sadr is hiding in southern Iraq...like he did under Saddam...sunnis just switched gears and are fighting the US in different places, and sending in the occasional suicide bomber

[Thorgrim]

Washington Post pages 12 and 13

[Thorgrim]

oh damn:

The patrol was scheduled to get under way about 7 p.m. — with one of the first stops to see an informant promising to identify Mahdi Army members in hiding.

But there were no Iraqi forces around except for the handful of local policemen permanently stationed at the outpost.

The nearly 60 Americans went upstairs to wait. The Iraqis stayed in a makeshift lounge, nibbling on bread and cheese and watching the reality show “Pimp My Ride” on a satellite channel.

U.S. soldiers broke out some coffee. Some plugged in their iPods. Taylor and a few others reviewed plans for the mission.

Still no Iraqis. More coffee. More tunes. And more grumbling.



...

Taylor assured the Iraqis the U.S. mission was to teach them how to keep their neighborhoods safe — not to play big brother — and that cooperating was the only way to stop the violence. The Iraqis rolled their eyes and sighed quietly.

A cell phone rang and the Iraqi lieutenant left the room to chat, cutting off Taylor in mid-sentence.

“I would have already smacked him in his face,” Sgt. Chase Decker, 23, of Port Orchard, Wash., muttered from a corner where he and three other U.S. soldiers were watching the culture clash unfold.

Culture clash hinders Iraqi-U.S. operations - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com

[avsp]

Originally Posted by me

agan & Petreaus claim that they'll have enough troops to hold cleared areas. I doubt they have but I'd love to be proved wrong

BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | US approves more troops for Iraq

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has approved a request for an extra 2,200 military police to support the security drive in Iraq's capital, Baghdad.

Speaking to Congress, Mr Gates said the deployment would be in addition to the nearly 24,000 combat troops and support personnel approved by President Bush.

The extra forces will help deal with an anticipated increase in detainees during the Baghdad security crackdown.

Top US military commander in Iraq, Lt Gen David Petraeus, made the request.

Its a bit worrying that this need wasnt foreseen in the surge planning,. OTOH its good that its been recognised & fixed.

I still suspect that an extra 100,000+ troops are really needed

[ballz2wallz]

I don't think the Iraqis killing each other is proof of 'bad news in Iraq', as their deaths are not really the argument for pulling our troops out. The argument for ending the war is to 'end unnecessary deaths of our American soldiers' is it not? The Middle East is full of Muslims killing each other by the hundreds all the time, how is that 'better' or 'worse' than it otherwise would be?