The nonsense about the interim Iraqi government calling all the shots militarily didn't last very long. Prime Minister Allawi declared that the assault on Fallujah had been halted. Rummy gave a press conference and said, nah, we ain't stopping yet, we're going on fighting.
Along with our Iraqi allies, of course, the ones who haven't deserted yet, at least. So how is it that the "sovereign" Iraqi government - you know, the one that our US commanders were ostentatiously saying to the press that they had to wait on before they started the offensive on Fallujah - declares the offensive over, but then the Americans who are taking their military direction from that government keep on fighting, and the Iraqi troops keep on fighting, too? Just how does this work?
Meanwhile, the military issues happy-talk pronoucements about how well things are going in Mosul, until very recently one of our great success stories on the march of freedom in Iraq. Al Jazeera reports, meanwhile, that the rebels are doing quite well in their efforts to take the city: Anti-US fighters take control of Mosul 11/13/04.
Maybe the Pentagon should adopt a new guideline: when Al Jazeera starts having higher credibility than the Pentagon's announcments about the state of the military situation, maybe it's time to reassess the happy talk.
The following assessment by military analyst Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) gives some important perspective on what victory for the US/Allawi forces would actually mean:
The Fallujah Objectives:What Meaningful "Victory" Really Means (*.pdf file)
It is ... already clear that the insurgents are taking the battle outside Fallujah. The attacks in Samarra have dramatized two things: First, that the insurgents are already taking the battle outside Fallujah and demonstrating that a Coalition-Interim Government victory in Fallujah will not be a victory in Al Anbar.
Second, and most seriously, that the Iraqi Interim Government's performance in Samarra is a warning that it is may well be unready to win any meaningful degree of political victory in even the most narrow sense of local stability operations. As in Najaf and Sadr City, it has not yet shown it is capable of rapidly establishing security, aid, and governance in the areas where Coalition led forces win military victories. By most outside reports, its performance in these areas over the last few months has been as bad as the military performance of its forces in April -- if not worse. It establishes a presence, not governance. It lacks the military security forces to establish real security. It makes promises of aid it does not deliver. It cannot expand its efforts to deal with semi-secure areas like Ar Ramadi.
This piece of Cordesman's on more general policy in Iraq is also worthwhile:
US Policy in Iraq: A "Realist" Approach to its Challenges and Opportunities 08/06/04
There is a time and place for rhetoric and comforting political illusions. Iraq is not that time and place. If anything, Iraq has provided shock therapy in illustrating the dangers of trying to impose ideology and theory on reality, the weaknesses of many key institutions, the limits to the so-called international community, and the sheer scale and complexity of nation building and security operations. In Washington, "optimist" is almost always a synonym for "jackass," in a world where simple, quick, cheap and easy solutions are inevitably doomed to failure.
Cordesman is more positive about the possibilities for the outcome in Iraq than that one paragraph may suggest. But, as the title of his piece indicates, he is arguing for the urgency of a more reality-based approach and understanding of the situation there.
14 comments:
Get real! You just pull stories off the web and figure how you can use them to further your hatred of George Bush. Get over yourself, it is people like you that cause this great rift in America and turn around and blame it on Bush and the Republican.
War doesn't go exactly black and white like you seem to think it does. Just because they say the major fighting is over doesn't mean that there isn't going to be more action before it is all over. When Bush landed on the Aircraft Carrier and declarde the end of major fighting, he meant exactly that. The major ground offensive achieved its goal and all they came after was terrorists trying to take control of Iraq for themselves. The Interim Government is calling the shots and you can spout your opinion all you want, but it doesn't make it a fact.
We aren't going anywhere until elections are held and the security of the Iraqi people is being handled by the Iraqi Government. The only reason why we are still in Iraq because they know they can't defend themselves from the onslaught of the terrorists bent on taking control of their country.
I thought we were in Iraq to eliminate all those "weapons of mass destruction." - Bruce
Actually we were there to neutralize the threat of the Weapons of Mass Destruction. That means eliminate the person that could possibly distribute them to terrorists. Just because we didn't find them, we knew they existed and he had 12 years to remove them. There was plenty of evidence that showed they were their and only people like you chose not to read the complete story about the inspections of Iraq, you seek to disect a report and extract pieces that fit into your agenda and post that all over the web.
The fact of the matter is Saddam was a threat and he was neutralized and I really don't care if narrowed minded people like you seek to discredit President Bush and our government for trying to protect us and the rest of the Free World from Global Terrorists.
Let's see: No WMDs. No links to Al Qaeda. No involvement in anti-American terorirsm. This is the "threat" that we tied up practically the entire fighting force of the US Army to combat? As for the "Free World," I don't know how loyal Foxists define the term these days. But if it means democracies, the US seems to be the only one that is enthusiastic enough to actively participate in the war, Britain excepted of course. And even Britain has been reducing the number of its troops.
So, mrdad3, I guess it's just as well that cheering for Team Bush seems to be your main concern. Because that's about the only justification for the war left. Don't worry, though. It's very likely there'll be an Iraq War for you to cheer for the next four years. For those watching it on Fox News and cheering for the "home team," that will be a happy event. For our soldiers losing lives and limbs, it's not so clear that the Bush cheerleaders much care about their best interests. - Bruce
Hey, there were plenty of links to Al-Quida and it was documented if you would have bothered to listen and read the testimony in front of the commission. You are like all the others you read from web sites that don't tell the whole story and you act like it is gospel.
I really don't care we ever find a stock pile of WMD's in Iraq, the main reason we went in was to neutralize the threat and we did by removing Saddam. The rest really don't matter to me.
I'm not really familiar with this "Al-Quida" group. But since there was no WMDs there, that means there was no WMD threat to be "neutralized." But I believe that you, mrdad3, like all too many Republican war fans, really DON'T care. - Bruce
I didn't realize that you never mispelled words, you knew what I meant. So can keep harping on the "No WMD's" all you want, but the fact of the matter is we accomplished the #1 goal of the War in Iraq and as soon as elections are held in Jan 2005 we will accomplish the final goal.
Really don't care about what exactly? I care that we liberated 50,000,000 people in two countries that were living in horrible conditions that I wouldn't even wish on my worst enemy. You can say that you are right and everyone that agreed with the War in Iraq is wrong, but you would be waiting your breath.
I don't really understand why you never comment on the gross mispelled words of your "Chica" fan, but, when someone disagrees with you, out come the WMDs to insert the "ad hominum" technique.
IV Leaguer
And I don't understand why people who claim to "support our troops" aren't willing to look at the real problems in the mission we've sent them to fight.
But I couldn't help but notice that mrdad3 had no trouble spelling the names of "Iraq" or "Saddam." It's just the name of the group that attacked the US on 9/11 that he's not very familiar with.
And it's not entirely his fault. The US has spent a lot more time, effort, money and lives on invading Iraq and ousting Saddam than on pursuing the killers of 9/11. - Bruce
Bruce,
Just been reading the discussion here and I think it is a perfect summary of where we are today on the war -- a large number of Bush voters are satisfied that the Iraq war was justified even though all of the reports of all the investigators have concluded that Saddam did not have WMD's, did not have a program in place to build WMD's, had no connection to 9/11, and had no significant connection to Al Qaeda.
In this regard, Iraq is a lot like Vietnam -- another war we should not have fought -- the similarity is in our capacity to ignore the evidence and our incapacity to recognize our own folly. As in Vietnam, there is a terrible price to be paid.
Sadly, thousands of American troops and many more innocent Iraqi civilians will pay that price.
Neil
Bruce,
I never said there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11 and neither did President Bush. It was all the Bush haters and detractors that said Bush said it. There was a direct connection between Saddam and International Terrorism and that is why he was a extreme threat and had to be eliminated.
The International Community recognitized the threat Saddam posed to everyone in the world, but many disagreed with our plan on how to take care of the threat. All I have to say is that you are entitled to your opinion, but please don't dismiss other peoples right to disagree with you.
25,000,000 Iraqi's are now free of the brutal Dictator Saddam and you can attempt to diminish the accomplishments of our military all you want just because you don't agree with War in Iraq.
Neil, I haven't seen exact polling breakdowns on this issue. Polling on foreign policy issues is notoriously weak.
But I'm guessing there are two distinct groups of Iraq War supporters in this regard. The hardcores - which apparently include most Republicans - take the attitude you describe. There seems to be almost no lower limit to how far they are willing to "lower the bar" to measure the administration's conduct. Gunning down wounded, unarmed prisoners in cold blood in a mosque? Well, at least we're better than kidnappers who cut off the head of a female aid worker. How much lower can the bar of measurement get?
I think there is another groups of war supporters who are appalled how badly they were deceived by the administration over the causes of the war. They've either turned against the war already or they recognize that there are major problems in the administration's approach to it.
After four more years of this, even the hardcores will be looking desperately for a way they can say we should pull out and still blame it all on the Democrats. - Bruce
mrdad3 says 25 million Iraqi's are free thanks to the accomplishments of our military
I'm sure Margaret Hassan and her family are very pleased to be free from Saddam, and I am sure they will send a than you note to Mr Bush very soon
When the Bushies are done celebrating the masterful foreign policy achievements of Bush, Rice and Rumsfeld, perhaps they will open their eyes to reality.
Neil
Post a Comment