A War We Might Win *nytimes op/ed*

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by motivez

What makes you think this is the truth more than any other New York Times op-ed piece? Because you agree with it's conclusion?

Brookings has quite a reputation and track record. I seriously doubt they would put that on the line just to be Bush backers.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

Yeah, he's an Iraq war cheerleader.

But you just said:

Originally Posted by motivez

and then changed his mind once he saw what a clusterfuck it was?

[motivez]

Someone who strongly pushed for the war in Iraq, wrote a book about it, wrote many articles about it, and then became regretful once it started going bad isn't a "war critic."

They're an opportunist.

[SoFlaJDM]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

He's probably a fan of teh truth, no matter where it comes from.

This guy went over to Iraq and formed his opinion, something most people who are against the war haven't done. That includes you.

so how can that possibly mean the NYT? nothing that comes from there is credible, right?

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

so how can that possibly mean the NYT? nothing that comes from there is credible, right?

Just like nothing from the UN is credible..unless of course they need the resolutions to help justify their positions.

An all volunteer force is going to have decent morale as most would not volunteer if they did not subscribe to the idea of fighting in Iraq. Most soldiers do not think about the political repercussions, only the mission that day. They must remain in good spirits as a unit or they are not as affective and can lose their life.

We make progress in one area and lose progress in another because we do not have enough soldiers there and no political solution. They just took another vacation from their government.

I hope we can leave an Iraq that people are not dying by 20-50 every day. I hope we can leave soon so our soldiers do not have to give their lifes for a country that does not seem grateful. I hope we can leave so we can get out of our 9 billion dollar a month expense.

I respect the authors opinion, but i simply disagree unless we have a massive change in direction in the political arena.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

so how can that possibly mean the NYT? nothing that comes from there is credible, right?

Says who? The paper as a whole is heavily biased

[motivez]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I respect the authors opinion

Really? Why?

What have these guys done to earn your respect in this matter?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

Really? Why?

What have these guys done to earn your respect in this matter?

Lived in Iraq for 8 days...unlike, well, you.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Lived in Iraq for 8 days...unlike, well, you.

I'm not asking you, I'm asking Dos.

I really don't care whether or not you respect their opinion.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by motivez

Really? Why?

What have these guys done to earn your respect in this matter?

It was more of a blanket statement that really doesn't hold too much water behind it. Kind of like the cashier at a grocery store could care less but they say "thanks come again" in as sincere a manner as possible.

[motivez]

Ah, well see my thread for why you shouldn't respect these guys opinion in this matter.

[thatguyoverthere]

(Crosspost)

Cheers to Motivez and Greenwald for bringing this to our attention,...

...and jeers to everyone on the forum who unquestioningly accepted the idea that these two were actually war critics.

For folks who pride yourselves on your skepticism, y'all sure didn't hesitate to swallow the characterization of these two clowns as "war critics!"

Next time all of you phony skeptics trumpet the virtues of your skepticism (*cough*globalwarming*cough*), I surely hope someone will link to these two threads and have a great big laugh at your expense.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Lived in Iraq for 8 days...unlike, well, you.

So? John Mccain was there, he even bought a rug, think he saw the real Iraq?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

So? John Mccain was there, he even bought a rug, think he saw the real Iraq?

He was there the past few weeks?

I'm sure he saw the real Iraq when he was there

[David Octavius]

Yea tactically things are looking up but there are still major political differences - conflicts that could easily boil over into more conflicts and deepen the fissures of an already divided people. Tactically means nothing if strategically we are spinning our wheels

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Yea tactically things are looking up but there are still major political differences - conflicts that could easily boil over into more conflicts and deepen the fissures of an already divided people. Tactically means nothing if strategically we are spinning our wheels

Ah. Someone who stays on topic of the thread instead of getting on the *I thought you hate the NYT bandwagon*

I agree. This is good news, but we need the Iraq Government to mend the attitudes of the people and get them to work together instead of fight each other permanently. And that isn't going to happen with they take months off all the time.

Let's just hope that this is the start of more good news coming from Iraq.

[avsp]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

in 2005 the Iraqi Security Forces were nothing more than tag alongs for our patrols. Al Anbar province was also the most dangerous place in Iraq.

Both situations have been are being reserved, do you not think that is progress?

a) fixt
b) but ironically not presumed obvious typo
c) i do think it is progress, .., further its been very much as outlined in Bush's Surge announcement speech. Its going to be a long hard road.



Today after 38 years the UK army ended Operation Banner in NI.

This was achieved after numerous setbacks brought about by failures to apprehend reality, failures of discipline, & unsucessfull counter-productive authoritarian measures.

Other obstacles that had to be overcome included the problem of of raising troops 'political consciousness'.

There were many other achievements/failures.

And all this was achieved in a situation where there werent numerous boardering nations all of whom had enormous stakes in the outcome & where the sectarian/ethnic divide was a simple binary one that was well understood & all this with no language barrier.

To expect progress to be smooth or rapid or to be in line with domestic electorial needs is insane. At least in the NI/UK case there was a bipartisan approach in Westminster.

In the end the army can only create the space in which a political solution can be sought. There is no point moaning about the inadequacies of the Iraqi govt when there is no semblance of security coz the various factions within it will just be concerned with using violence to position themselves for any outcome.

In Iraq's case gaining a semblance of security isnt possible without cutting deals with, at least, SA, Iran & Syria. & possibly Pakistan, ..., & perhaps China, ..., best not leave Russia off the list of possibles too.



As for trooper morale, from the various reports I've read, it seems dependant on how long they've been there , how many tours they've done, their reasons for joining in the first place etc rather than any signs of 'progress'. I should check the Pentagon own assesment of these things, perhaps.



Anyone who promoted this war & then denounced it after the wheels came off ought to, at the time, begged for forgiveness & admitted extreme gross stupidity.

If they didnt then they're craven opportunists who care more for their own ego defence than the suffering of the Iraqi people (or even CoW troopers) & are quite frankly sh*ts of the highest order.

It would not, however, automatically make their future opinions any more or less realistic tho', despite any percieved change in their credibility.



The whole credibility debate is largely insane anyway. What matters is are there enough troops to 'hold' the ground 'cleared' or not? & if not what can be done about it?

It would appear that only a small proportion of IA units can & that they still need embedded CoW officers up to the task. Likewise there is an equipment supply bottleneck in training up more IA units. Either way they remove CoW officers from CoW units & so the clearence process slows down even further, ..., which is jusy as well as there are insufficient numbers to hold any more cleared ground anyway.

Basically there still arent enough troops, ..., but this has been obvious since the statue was pulled down. But political partisanship prevents anyone from doing the required thing & sending still yet more troops in.

In the meantime of course the whole excerise just draws more & more recruits in for the various Jihadist factions & CoWs clearence efforts given such people some limited battle experience.

Meanwhile in A'stan, ..., the wheels are coming off their too as UK battle losses approach WW2 rates.


Lastly the 'good news' from Iraq is as I said yesterday their football victory in the Asian Cup. When CoW troops can play football with the locals then thats when to expect the Iraqi politicos to get their act together.