General: Anbar Ready for Handover

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Who are you to say I didn't read it? I read it and even picked up on the numerous half-truths throughout the article that show a clear bias. You still haven't addressed my question. Who is this person and why is his opinion meaningful in comparison the Iraqi government, generals on the ground and the UN?

Are you sure you read it?

The last sentence tells you who the author is.

Andrew J. Bacevich is a professor of history and international relations at Boston University. His new book, "The Limits of Power," will be published later this year.

And I never thought I would see you waving the UN around as an authority. I'm looking out my window to see if any pigs have sprouted wings.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Who is that and how is he important?

He has a completely objective view of Iraq

He has been "a persistent, vocal critic of the US occupation of Iraq, calling the conflict a catastrophic failure."In March of 2007, he described George W. Bush's endorsement of such "preventive wars" as "immoral, illicit, and imprudent." His son died fighting in the Iraq war in May of 2007.

[ballz2wallz]

He's a professor on International Policy at BU.

He made a prediction when the Iraq war started:

...if, as seems probable, the effort encounters greater resistance than its architects imagine, our way of life may find itself tested in ways that will make the Vietnam War look like a mere blip in American history...[

He may just want to prove himself right.

He's also got some Cindy Sheehan-like feelings, I'm sure:

His son died fighting in the Iraq war in May of 2007.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

He has a completely objective view of Iraq

He has been "a persistent, vocal critic of the US occupation of Iraq, calling the conflict a catastrophic failure."In March of 2007, he described George W. Bush's endorsement of such "preventive wars" as "immoral, illicit, and imprudent." His son died fighting in the Iraq war in May of 2007.

So anyone who disagrees with the war is not objective?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

He has a completely objective view of Iraq

He called the war a mistake, and then his son died, so his word is garbage on calling the war a mistake...

No

His points have been echoed by Sen. Jim Webb, do you have some elaborate excuse why he has been disappointed in 2007?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Are you sure you read it?

The last sentence tells you who the author is.


And I never thought I would see you waving the UN around as an authority. I'm looking out my window to see if any pigs have sprouted wings.

I never thought you would be disagreeing with the UN as an authority. I'm looking out my window to see if any pigs have sprouted wings The UN was the authority of the liberals on Iraq for quite some time. Now even they have changed their view. You're going to address that by using ad hominems against me? You're more than welcome to I suppose, but I don't see how it strengthens your argument.

I don't agree with the NY Times's bias either. But if they ran a headline on the front page that the surge was working I damn well would point to it and say "See... now what do you have to base your argument on?" Apparently the answer to that question is some guy from Boston whose credentials you refuse to even acknowledge.

I read the last sentence, but I still don't see how it answers my question. Who is he and how is his opinion important?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I read the last sentence, but I still don't see how it answers my question. Who is he and how is his opinion important?

Maybe he's wicked smaht?

[JaJae]

Chomsky is pretty smart, but I think most people would agree he's pretty loony. It's a straight up and fair question to ask. The UN, US, and Iraq all agree there has been progress. That basically covers all angles and perspectives coming to an agreement that things are looking better in Iraq.

For months I have been saying there has been military progress in Iraq. The wrath of the forum came down on me when I started saying this. Now I don't think anyone would dare argue this point with me. Those changes didn't happen overnight, there was progress to get to where we are. Yet the liberals on this forum absolutely vehemently refused to accept such a notion. The success of the military has laid the groundwork for political success. We are just not seeing the start of political progress. I haven't said the surge was a complete success, yippidity doo daah, wave the flag, Mission Accomplished, hooraaah... which seems to be where people who oppose the war and refuse to acknowledge it's upsides like to bring the argument. All I'm doing is pointing out where we are in Iraq and trying to get people to acknowledge it. Perhaps in a few more months...

[Thorgrim]

There's a strong case that there has been no military progress because of the surge

Anbar was described as being mostly controlled by "Sunnis...not Americans" in 2005 by American officers, in 2008, we are supposedly handing over the provinces to...Sunnis, not Americans

In 2006 we decided to bribe enough American Marine killers so that they'd be getting so much from the US they could make money sleeping, talk about the ultimate welfare state

In 2007 Bush announced the surge, and even though the events of 2006 were happening and the cleanout had already begun, it's given credit...why...because otherwise they'd have nothing to celebrate, only the deadliest year ever to look at...

US Deaths are up this month, is that a military defeat now? Considering your criteria for military progress is the falling of American deaths