Barack Obama call your office:
The United States is now winning the war that two years ago seemed lost. Limited, sometimes sharp fighting and periodic terrorist bombings in Iraq are likely to continue, possibly for years. But the Iraqi government and the U.S. now are able to shift focus from mainly combat to mainly building the fragile beginnings of peace — a transition that many found almost unthinkable as recently as one year ago.
Despite the occasional bursts of violence, Iraq has reached the point where the insurgents, who once controlled whole cities, no longer have the clout to threaten the viability of the central government.
That does not mean the war has ended or that U.S. troops have no role in Iraq. It means the combat phase finally is ending, years past the time when President Bush optimistically declared it had. The new phase focuses on training the Iraqi army and police, restraining the flow of illicit weaponry from Iran, supporting closer links between Baghdad and local governments, pushing the integration of former insurgents into legitimate government jobs and assisting in rebuilding the economy. [Associated Press]
This piece is from Robert Reid of the AP who has been the Baghdad bureau chief for the AP since 2003 and is no neocon or Bush plant that some like to immediately try to discredit people with. The whole article is well worth a full read. It pretty much lines up with my prior assessment that Iraq is moving into a Northern Ireland like phase where radicals will still strike from time to time but the future of the government is no longer in doubt. Iraq was not heaven on Earth before the US invasion and it will not be heaven on Earth anytime soon but it is definitely finely going in the right direction due to the implementation of the US military’s counterinsurgency strategy.
The US may be “winning” in Iraq but it will be impossible to know if the US has “won” until many years after the fact. The US won the Korean War when Seoul hosted the Olympic Games in 1988; if Baghdad is hosting the 2040 Olympic Games then we will know the US has won in Iraq as well.
Popularity: 2%
2:14 am on July 28th, 2008 1
Listen GI, I’m not discounting the fact that the situation in Iraq has changed considerably since 2006. Whether that was due to the COIN strategy implemented along with the “surge” of additional US troops or the autochthonous dynamics within Iraq itself, the results themselves are indisputable.
However, it doesn’t necessarily follow that because sectarian and insurgent violence has abated that ergo the US is “winning” in Iraq. As the article states, and as I have repeatedly argued to, there are still a cornucopia of economic and political benchmarks that are still nowhere near being met. You and the authors of the AP article may see such things as signs that there is a light at the end of tunnel, but I think more reasonable people will rightly see the unrealized political and economic benchmarks as more a sword of Damocles hanging over the Iraqi nation.
It’s amazing the level of spin, doublespeak, and euphemistic sophistries that are being deployed to put lipstick on the ugly hog that is Iraq. All I could do was shake my head at amazement at what Army Col. Tom James said was a “perilous peace” in Iraq. I’m sorry, but last time I checked peaceful situations didn’t contain elements of imminent peril.
Finally, if your still adamant in maintaining that the US is choo-chooing towards “winning” in Iraq, then I’d have you consider the recent pronouncements of Iraq’s former prime minister Ayad Allawi:
“Appearing…at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, former Iraqi Prime Minister…Ayad Allawi stressed that the security gains of the ’surge’ are only temporary. The surge ‘did succeed from a military point of view,’…but he emphasized that its gains could evaporate unless political reconciliation follows. ‘The first issue is reconciliation,’…But sitting down with his ‘friends’ such as…President Jalal Talabani won’t do the trick. ‘We need to sit with those people who have been disenfranchised,’…
More than 4 million Iraqis remain internal and external refugees…and they need ’security and stability’ above all before they can return. Allawi isn’t impressed by the current Iraqi army and police, which he views as SECTARIAN (emphasis mine). ‘Sectarianism is worse than terrorism…The militias are still roaming the streets is Iraq..In Basra, there are 13 kinds of militias, and only one was attacked…”
2:52 pm on July 28th, 2008 2
Or we’ll know we won in Iraq, just like the Cold War, when Iraqi juicy girls show up in Songtan.
7:04 am on July 29th, 2008 3
Still does not answer the central question. If things are going so well-when can the US pull out the bulk of its forces, throw the Iraqis in the deep end of the pool and go home? This is not Korea where there was an external threat.
Plus, that so called tranquility comes at a hell of a cost to both the Iraqis and the US.
I would also submit that over time the insurgency can come back-especially if the government goes the route of other Arab governments and wastes its oil wealth.
11:47 am on July 29th, 2008 4
What I find most ironic about GI’s trumpeting of this AP piece is the sheer disingenuousness it betrays on his part.
Consider a post that GI wrote on January 23, 2008. In the post titled “George Soros Funds Center for Public Integrity Hit Piece”, GI, not one to beat around the bush mind you, opens forcefully yet casually with these remarks: “Another day, and yet another Associated Press hit piece…”
Basically the post is another one of GI’s usual pantys-in-a-twist cri de couers about how the press is incompetent because they present something not to his personal liking. In this case, GI takes to task the AP for not doing due diligence in raising questions that a certain organization is funded by George Soros.
According to his own words, “Either the AP is incompetent or compliant in not reporting something as relevant as this organization(Center for Public Integrity) being funded by George Soros…That is why I believe this is just another example of a left wing media information operation against President Bush.”
Let me put this into context for others: in one instance, GI wants you to believe that the AP is at best no better than fish wrap, then in another instance he wants you to believe that what AP says about the situation in Iraq is like the word being sent in from on high.
In other words, if the AP says things that comport with his idees-fixes it’s gold. If not, then chalk it up to either bumbling or a lefting wing conspiracy.
In any case, disingenuousness through and through.
1:17 pm on July 29th, 2008 5
If people would stick to the, “The US shouldn’t be in Iraq in the first place” line - I could respect them more.
Trying that opinion behind some unspoken core idea success in Iraq is defined by a fully functional state in which there are little to no US troops — is BS.
And benchmarks have been met in significant numbers the last couple of years — but they are benchmarks — they are not a scorecard which signify the end of the game — they are goals to strive for and when surpassed - higher ones set — which the media and critics love, because they can ALWAYS point to them to “prove” things aren’t working.
One of the things Bush had wrong at the start of plans to move into Iraq (and Afghanistan) was that the US wasn’t going to get the game of “nation building.”
He quickly backed off that talk, but subsequent events after the main days of fighting seemed to prove Rumsfeld and others did not put their minds to nation-building (enough) — which means they failed to understand the situation from the start.
McCain took heat saying US troops might be in Iraq for decades, but how many examples like Korea are out there that show long-term commitment is likely necessary in dealing with such states as Iraq?
If you want to say the US presence in Iraq is immoral or illegal or unjustified or whatever — that nothing the US can do in country will reach a value high enough to justify going in in the first place — fine.
But arguing benchmarks and some implied idea that a stable nation can be cooked up on a microwave time-table is dishonest.
2:53 pm on July 29th, 2008 6
Gaetano obviously has reading comprehension problems. The very fact that AP is admitting that the US military is winning in Iraq is what makes the article so significant in the first place and why I especially mentioned in the article this:
This piece is from Robert Reid of the AP who has been the Baghdad bureau chief for the AP since 2003 and is no neocon or Bush plant that some like to immediately try to discredit people with.
Maybe next Obama will actually come around and give credit to where credit is due, to the US military. When things were going bad people on the far left were quick to blame the military but when things are going better the left just cannot bring itself to credit the hard work of the military implementing its counterinsurgency strategy that has made things better. The far left hates Bush so bad that they feel crediting the military would be crediting Bush.
Look at Gaetano he almost seems disappointed that casualties are down dramatically in Iraq. People may remember Gaetano was even against giving the new educational benefits to the US military servicemembers. I’m sure if you ask him though he will say he supports the troops.
Skippy, like I said before I seriously doubt Petraeus is going to make any force reduction recommendations before the election in order to not appear to be influencing the election. I would be shocked if the present trend continues he does not reduce troops next year.
6:02 pm on July 29th, 2008 7
I doubt this war can be won because of what it is doing to Americans. It has tarnished the image of America. The Bush administration might be telling the truth about Iran, but given the scandalous untruths they told about Iraq, I am not inclined to believe them. I still haven’t heard anyone offer up an objective for the current deployment in Iraq, so without an objective there is nothing by which the US can declare victory.
7:15 pm on July 29th, 2008 8
If Iraq develops into a stable country that is not a threat to its neighbors, does not harbor terrorists, and is friendly to America this would be a strategic victory for the US.
7:16 pm on July 29th, 2008 9
Matt, with all due respect, has given us the usual talking points of the opposition that I just can’t understand.
1. When and where was America’s image not tarnished?
Perhaps in Australia - from tid bits I’ve heard over the years from military members who were stationed or visited there. But where else among the major nations? I can still remember the massive protests against Reagan in the 1980s. The Vietnam War pretty much soured the world on the US for decades — and even before that - Nixon was being bombarded with vegetables as vice president when touring South Ameria…
…so I don’t see how the US image could be so tarnished.
The fact Western Europe has been electing center-right governments recently also gives me pause.
2. What lies about Iraq before the war are we talking about? Of course they mean the faulty intelligence — the same faulty intelligence Western (and Middle Eastern) governments had believed for years before Bush took office..,
3. Objectives? That seems as plain as can be: suppress the violence to help facilitate the establishment of a stable, at least semi-democratic government representing the whole of a unified Iraq and providing stability for econmic growth (which Iraq’s oil wealth should help speed along eventually).
“Victory” in Iraq will depend most of all on the Iraqis.
Outside elements (from the US, Iran, and elsewhere) can influence the outcome, but the Iraqis will be the main cause of success or failure.
But the US military helping the Iraqi government could be a key to that success as well.
We won’t know for a decade or more.
12:27 am on July 30th, 2008 10
From the AP piece that GI thinks so highly of: “…the Iraqi government and the US are now able to shift focus from mainly combat to mainly building the fragile beginnings of peace-a transition that many found almost unthinkable as recently as one year ago.”
Then there’s this from the July 29, 2008 edition of Reuters:
IRAQ BEGINS CRACKDOWN IN RESTIVE DIYALA PROVINCE
By Khalid al-Ansary
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqi forces began a major security operation in northeastern Diyala province on Tuesday, officials said, in the latest crackdown on Sunni Arab insurgents and Shi’ite militias.
Sunni Islamist al Qaeda has sought to stoke tensions in religiously and ethnically mixed Diyala, where a series of bomb attacks have killed scores of people.
Suicide bombers killed 27 people in the provincial capital Baquba, 65 km (40 miles) northeast of Baghdad, this month alone.
“The operations started today with raids in Baquba,” Defence Ministry spokesman Major-General Mohammad al-Askari said on Iraqiya state television.
Al Qaeda is orienting its activities more towards northern Iraq after being forced from former strongholds in Baghdad and Iraq’s west.
Details of troop numbers involved in the operation were not immediately available. The U.S. military has said the crackdown would be run by Iraqi forces with minimal U.S. involvement.
Large numbers of U.S. troops took part in a big crackdown in Diyala last year, but insurgents have proved resilient. Women in particular have carried out numerous suicide attacks in Diyala.
I can’t speak for GI, but for most reasonable people the events that are preceeding in Diyala right now clearly belie that the US and Iraqi forces are in the process of “nation building”. To the contrary, it seems that US and Iraqi forces are still doing the same song and dance as in the previous couple of years.
If you want a truly honest snapshot of what Iraq is like today, consider this quote from an LA Times article dated July 28, 2008 by Ned Parker
“Despite the gains, the political horizon is clouded: Shiite Muslim parties are locked in dangerous rivalries across central and southern Iraq. Kurds and Arabs in the north compete for land with no resolution in sight. U.S.-backed Sunni Arab fighters who turned on the group Al Qaeda in Iraq could return to the insurgency if the government does not deliver jobs and a chance to join the political process. Bombings, assassinations and kidnappings still occur almost daily. And those out enjoying Baghdad’s night life feel safe only because they are staying inside their own districts in a city transformed into a patchwork of enclaves after years of sectarian violence.”
Be frank here GI, does the above look like “peace” to you. Does that even remotely resemble the situation in South Korea in 1955 as you ridiculously argue? Let me save you the trouble GI, the answer is a resounding NO. What you have in Iraq, circa 2008, is in every sense of the word a shattered society.
I see a spade here and I’m calling it a spade: your contention that the US is “winning” and that Iraq is on the path toward stability is downright perverse and mendacious.
6:22 am on July 30th, 2008 11
I’m sure you were cheering when you read people were killed in the car bombs that went off yesterday just so you can post about it here. When I read about the car bombs myself I wondered how long it would be before you woul post about it here. It didn’t take long. I’m sure you were disappointed that no US soldiers died though.
I said that Iraq is moving into a Northern Ireland like phase where car bombs by extremists will continue to go off from time to time but they in no way will affect what is clearly becoming a ruling government in Iraq.
Iraq was not heaven on Earth before the US got there with the various sects holding hands and singing songs together like you seem to believe. Iraq was already a shattered society before the US even got there. I was there I saw it myself, you obviously have never spent a day in Iraq if you think it wasn’t a shattered society before the war.
Iraq is extremely complicated and no artificial timeline is going to fix it. It will be a slow time consuming effort addressing one issue at a time. The US role of helping to maintain security and training Iraqi forces is what will allow the government to continue to address these issue. That is also why I said it could be 2040 before the US can say it won the war in Iraq.
This is much like the US’s role after the Korean War which was to maintain national security and train the ROK Army. An artificial timeline to pull US troops out of Korea after the Korean War have done nothing to help the Korean government or serve US national interests.
6:52 am on July 30th, 2008 12
Reading your comments, GI, I’m really beginning to worry about your ability at differentiation. Simply because I site evidence of real and ongoing violence or provide information for you indicating serious economic, political, and social turmoil in Iraq, does not in any way indicate that I’m overjoyed at such news.
How any living person could draw such asinine conclusions really defies any sort of comprehension. The only thing I can really say is that your taking another one of your usual cheap shots when the preponderance of evidence doesn’t go your way.
As to your assertion that Iraq was a shattered society before the US invasion, I have to again disagree. Read Jon Lee Anderson’s “The Fall of Baghdad” and there you’ll get a real sense of how truly Iraqi society went into a tailspin following the collapse of the Saddam regime. Moreover, consider the flight of the Iraqi middle class-the doctors, lawyers, teachers, bankers, engineers-the backbone of any functioning, and still try and say with straight face your assertions.
Finally, let me ask you a personal question GI. When was the last time you did a tour in Iraq? From what I surmise, you were there during the initial phases and haven’t seem to have been back since. If that be the case, I find it monstrously hypocritical of you to be sitting there and in essence advocate the repeated deployment of your fellow soldiers into a messy conflict with no clear end in sight. I find it cringe inducing that you would sit there and advocate continued sacrifices on the part of your fellow soldiers and citizens all while sitting in your government provided trappings far away from the real conflict.
So please, GI, disabuse me of the above premonitions. Flesh out for me and your other readers what experiences you have in terms of Iraq that we should be persuaded by your arguments.
7:33 am on July 30th, 2008 13
Gaetano Calabresi,
Your mile high horse is asinine.
How about climbing off it and just arguing your points?
—On the Korea connection - try looking at the 1945-1950 period instead of 1955 — or move forward to the 1960-61 period.
But overall, there were also periods of violent unrest and bloodshed in South Korea until the early 1990s.
One of the worst periods was, if I remember correctly, just after the US military pulled out and before the Korean War began.
7:35 am on July 30th, 2008 14
“Flesh out for me and your other readers what experiences you have in terms of Iraq that we should be persuaded by your arguments.”
I haven’t been reading all of this — so I’ll ask: Calabresi, how did you gain your intimate personal and correct knowledge of what is right and wrong in Iraq?
7:51 am on July 30th, 2008 15
Since 2006 I’ve been a legislative assisstant on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Prior to that, I worked in Seoul for the McKinsey Group. So I worked and lived in Korea, and in the the course of doing research about the country I came across this site.
As to arguing my points, usinkorea, I believe that I am. GI wants to argue that Iraq circa 2008 is like Korea circa 1955. I contend that it is not and never was.
Hope that satisfies you my friend.
7:54 am on July 30th, 2008 16
I was there for OIF 1 and was very proud of what we accomplished in Iraq at the expense of seven soldiers killed in my battalion. That is why Iraq is very personal to me.
I saw the people in southern Iraq living in run down shacks with straw roofs and living with their animals for heating. Then in Tikrit I saw wealthy Saddam loyalists living in huge mansions. It was pretty clear where the wealth of the country was going, which was to a select few.
The people who were not receiving the wealth lived in poverty with a shattered health care, education, public services, etc. Iraq was clearly a shattered society for those who did not receive the wealth and not the fantasy land you believe it to have been.
As far as experience in Iraq I clearly have more then you do and will probably be going back there in the near future since I volunteered for a deployable assignment to Iraq. I am actually looking forward to seeing the difference with my own two eyes.
Also I do not claim to be an Iraq expert, I highly recommend people read sites which I often link to like Bill Roggio, Mike Yon, Small Wars Journal, Mudville, which offer much more indepth Iraq analysis then I do here since I focus on mainly Korea issues here.
8:36 am on July 30th, 2008 17
I never claimed that Iraq pre-invasion was some sort of pristine Valhalla in the sand, GI. Clearly Iraq was a society in the grips of a corrupt, venal, ruthless dictatorship. I am also fully aware of the effect UN sanctions were having on the general populace.
That all being said, the least that could be said about Iraq prior to the invasion was that it was a STABLE and FUNCTIONING society. No battling militias, sepratist movements, daily bombings, kidnappings, murders, or infiltration of foreign fighters. Despite the numerous maladies inflicting Iraq prior to the invasion, there was at least a predictability and assurance of what to expect the next, however unpalatable it could be.
I’m not gainsaying what you saw during your tour in Iraq or the emotions that it stirred up in you. But I do think you’re operating on a incredibly solipsistic level of thinking. You took the lifestyle and way of life that you knew from the United States and projected them on to Iraqi society. You saw what Iraq lacked in relation to the US and summarily judged it harshly.
12:25 pm on July 30th, 2008 18
Gaetano Calabresi is a legislative assistant to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee?
I wonder if it would interest any of the members of that committee that one of their staffers considers American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines to be “rubes and bubbas”?
http://rokdrop.com/2008/07/01/new-gi-bill-on-the-verge-of-being-signed-into-law/ (first comment)
1:26 pm on July 30th, 2008 19
In all likelihood, probably not UT Videam. One, I was in no way speaking for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee nor speaking out in any capacity as a legislative assistant with the Foreign Relations Committee. Two, there are no guidelines barring me from making comments on a blog under an assumed alias as a private citizen.
Hate to burst your bubble here, but suprise, suprise government employees also have opinions and they do express them from time to time.
And please, stop with the feigned outrage over the rubes and bubbas remark. Were the remarks diplomatic? No, and I’ll gladly conceed the point. However, simply because the comment was inartful doesn’t take away from the truth of the statement. When I said rubes and bubbas, I was stating what is a known socioeconomic fact to anyone who somewhat follows military affairs in the US. It’s pretty clear that the a good majority of enlistee and officers are from the mid to low tax brackets of the rural South and Midwest. Military personnel I’ve talked to admit as much and so should you.
2:03 pm on July 30th, 2008 20
I’m not your friend. It is backhanded phrases like that show you on your high horse.
So, in belittling GI Korea for not being in Iraq full time, you place yourself, where? — In DC?
Or was your point just another belittling of soldiers?
A legislative aid — it would have fit more perfectly if you were in the State Department.
2:44 pm on July 30th, 2008 21
As I noted before, looking at Korea from 1945 on could be instructive.
It just so happens I am reading a book on the period now — The War for Korea 1945-1950. There are a good number of parallels between South Korea then and Iraq today. The book hasn’t brought out anything new. I’m sure a good number of readers here, who have read some in Korean history, will be familiar with this time period - so I’m not going to go into detail with it.
In 1948, we pulled out of a still splintered and fragile South Korea willing to let it fall to internal and external subversion. Truman changed that by throwing us back in when the North invaded. He did so because he believed if we stayed out of Korea, Asia could be lost to the same type of Iron Curtain that was falling across Europe.
Right or wrong on that, I’d say the US (and Western democracies and other democracies) have more at stake in the future of Iraq in that region than the US did with Korea in East Asia…
We also have a greater chance of success in Iraq due in large part due to the economic stability and growth that can come to Iraq via trade in oil.
Giving up in Iraq and allowing it to become a partner with Iran or another Afghanistan would be a huge mistake.
If failure is inevitable, then by all means, pull out.
But failure does not seem inevitable.
2:47 pm on July 30th, 2008 22
“I find it monstrously hypocritical of you to be sitting there and in essence advocate the repeated deployment of your fellow soldiers into a messy conflict with no clear end in sight.”
Excuse me Gaetano, but I am one of those soldiers who has done repeated deployments before and after the Surge. Since you want to give the impression of advocating for people like me, I have to wonder about your experiences in Iraq.
On my last tour, I twice had the opportunity to deal with CODEL visits, so I am curious if you came with those CODELs? If so, I hope that you took the opportunity to talk to those actually fighting the war, since those troop opinions matter the most.
If you haven’t talked to those troops for their opinion on mission progress (or at least blogged with them on the websites that GI mentions), then you should at least notice that all types of casualty and violent incident rates are significantly down and re-enlistment rates are above average. Therefore, somebody is obviously is ignoring your perceived “preponderance of evidence” and signing up for additional service, knowing that they will return to Iraq.
Also, I hope that you are not one of those staffers who yawn their way through detailed Green Zone briefings on the undeniable political and military progress in Iraq - focusing instead on sensationalizing outlier terrorist incidents.
And I seriously hope you are not one of those staffers who deliberately venture out to cherry-pick the base camp for disgruntled soldiers … hoping to get juicy quotes for back home political speeches by certain members of your committee. Since your committee is ripe with senators looking for post-Surge political cover (Biden, Hagel, Voinovich, and everyone’s favorite rock star, Obama, come to mind), I have to wonder if your Iraq experience (or lack thereof) is more attuned to supporting the political agenda of your committee, rather than true advocacy of the troops.
3:08 pm on July 30th, 2008 23
I’ve got a comment hung up in the spam filter.
It was a quote from the book named ealier. Here is another:
“At Chinju and Mason on October 7 [1946], American soldiers killed 12 Koreans and wonded more than 1000.”
The other quotes gives details of the Autumn Harvest Uprising staged across South Korea.
3:15 pm on July 30th, 2008 24
I should have continued the quote above. A couple of lines below where I stopped, it gives details about the Korean-on-Korean violence in that uprising:
If the police did not resist, they were often allowed to escape without their weapons and uniforms, but if the police fired on the mob and did not stop it, they died in battle or were tortured and executed in an orgy of murder.
7:00 pm on July 30th, 2008 25
USinKorea, I looked in the Akismet filter for your comment but after going through about a thousand spam comments I couldn’t find it.
Gaetano I didn’t compare Iraq to what I knew in the US. Before going into Iraq I expected the country to at least be developed as much as Mexico. I and other were extremely surprised how poor and decrepit the country was despite its oil wealth. Mexico looks like an advanced country in comparison.
As far as your stability comments, Iraq was “stable” because the people Saddam would line up and shoot in mass graves among other techniques the regime used to keep the country “stable”.
Jax, great comment and you are probably on to something.
9:42 pm on July 30th, 2008 26
Jax, I’m not advocating for any one person here nor am I trying to gain leverage for the committee I work for. If I was attempting to do the latter, why on earth would I be commenting on a blog written by US soldier with a clear chip on his shoulder? If anything, I’m advocating for a course of action that is in the United States’ long term interest. And that long term interest is being harmed with the continued US presence in Iraq.
Listen, why did we go to Iraq in the first place? What were the reasons? Bring democracy to the Middle East? If anything the Iraq was has set back democratic movements in the Middle East, entrenched autocracy, and emboldend reactionary elements unfriendly to the US. Help Israel feel more secure? Given the 2006 war with Lebanon, Iran’s saber rattling, and the general domestic political malaise in Israel itself, the exact opposite has happend. Elminate the threat of WMD’s? That would’ve worked had the putative WMD’s existed in the first place. Neutralize the threat of terror groups from state sponsors? Again, hasn’t happend. Just look at what Iran does with it’s specials groups and Pakistan (are ostensible ally) is doing in their own FATA, the rise of Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebonan and you’ll realize the risibleness of that argument.
Given the list of those failures, I don’t see how any reasonable person can still sit there and argue that it’s still worth wasting lives and taxpayer dollars for an endeavor that Iraqi’s themselves and a majority of Americans have shown a clear ambivalence for.
Even a figure such as Adm. William “Fox” Fallon sees the drain that the Iraq war is having on the United States’ geopolitical position. It was a shame that the voice of reason had to be dismissed the way he was.
And no Jax, the opinions of US troops in Iraq is not the ultimate deciding factor of progress in Iraq. On the contrary, it’s the Iraqi’s who have to eke out an existence in that country whose opinions matter the most.
Futhermore, so what if re-enlistment rates are up despite the Iraq war, Jax? Point me in the right direction here if you would, but I don’t see how sky high re-enlistment rates are going to solve the issue of say Kirkuk, get a de-Baathification that is acceptable to all parties passed through Iraqi parliment, or make it possible that the Iraqi government start effectively using its reconstruction money.
10:39 pm on July 30th, 2008 27
I’m sorry usinkorea, but these analogies of comparing Korea in 1945, 1950, 1955 or any other useful date to Iraq in 2008 is a prime example of conflating the tree for the forest itself.
The thrust of your argument is that because there were incidences of uprisings, insurgencys, and rebellions in post-WWII Korea, Iraq in 2008 is therefore comparable to Korea.
Let’s be frank usinkorea, your engaging in a very shallow form of analysis that I don’t think even college freshman would entertain. In your fixation on finding surface congruencies of events in Korea to events in Iraq, you totally miss the very different macro dynamics that instigated those events.
Simply put, Korea was and is a homogenous society where the conflicts arose out of ideological differences. In contrast, Iraq is a society rife with sectarian and tribal rivalries that by its very definition makes the possibility of insurgency and rebellion that much greater. Most importantly, it is exponentially much harder to quell.
11:15 pm on July 30th, 2008 28
That’s odd. When I tried to resubmit it, it gave the message that “you have already submitted this…” or something like that.
It isn’t terribly important.
It was quotes from The War For Korea 1945-1950 — where it talks about the 1946 Autumn Harvest Uprising. It was part of the gaping political and ideological divide in Korea. It was coordinated in different provinces. It included bombs (like car bombs in Iraq…). And it’s aim was to topple both the US military government and rightist elements.
1:12 am on July 31st, 2008 29
“Inartful”? Referring to our servicemembers as “rubes and bubbas” is far more than “inartful.” It’s derogatory and insulting. And it puts the lie to your claim that you “in no way look with contempt and derision” upon our servicemembers, and that you admire and respect them.
You’re an elitist who plays fast and loose with words and facts, “Calabresi.” It’s a shame, though not a surprise, that you hide behind a pseudonym. Of course you wouldn’t be man enough to own up to your use of slurs. It’s a shame, though, because such behavior by a person in a position of influence is unconscionable and should be brought to the attention of the members of the committee.
1:54 am on July 31st, 2008 30
“Of course you wouldn’t be man enough to own up to your use of slurs. ”
Don’t worry about UtVideaum, attacks Calabresi.
Korea is a magnet for guys that live to serve and flatter Koreans.
4:45 am on July 31st, 2008 31
I got the quote again which I’ll offer below.
In looking for the missing comment, I noticed Calabresi has a comment awaiting moderation. Beyond the insult, which is the only thing they guy seems to do well, he argues that comparing Iraq to Korea at any time is, what did he say, “shallow thinking even a college freshman wouldn’t engage in”, because Korea was a homogeneous society with just differing ideologies and not the kind of sectarian divisions that make Iraq like apples and oranges.
South Korea today has strong regional tendencies but the merits of comparing and contrasting Iraq with South Korea in the post-colonial period should be judged by what was going on on the ground.
What you see there is a society in deep unrest with frequent political assassinations and attempted assassinations, violent clashes between different socio-political groups trying to gain power, a very healthy insurgency, and so on. The society was falling apart amid chaos and violence.
But after the quote I’ll offer below, this is the last time I’ll comment on this thread, because it is a waste of time talking to someone who cares more about insulting people than engaging in debate.
The quote:
Just what role organizers of the Democratic People’s Front played in provoking the 214 incidents of violence that constituted the Autumn Harvest Uprising of 1946 is uncertain….The timing and location of the incidents, 140 of which occurred in the two Kyongsang provinces…suggest a degree of coordination and cooperation that can be credited only to the Democratic People’s Front. Small mobs (500 to 1,000 people) made almost 100 simultaneous attacks on separate police substations, assisted by the skilled use of prepared demolition and the cutting of telephone wires. The mobs contained small “action groups” that targeted the homes and businesses of prominent, affluent “rightists.”
….The Taegu mob proved to be the most vicious, killing 38 policemen. 15 more died in the province.
…At Chinju and Masan on October 7, American soldiers killed 12 Koreans and wounded more than 100…..
…if the police did not resist, they were often allowed to escape without their weapons and uniforms, but if the police fired on the mob and did not stop it, they died in battle or were tortured and executed in an orgy of murder. Policemen, youth auxiliaries, and officials were found impaled through the rectum, mutilated, burned, castrated, disemboweled, and buried alive.
…The wounded and missing numbered between 100 and 250. The rioters suffered almost 200 dead and 260 wounded, and the security forces arrested 5,540 suspected Kyongsang rebels. The military government estimated that another 200 “rightists” had been killed, wounded, or captured….
6:27 am on July 31st, 2008 32
It is interesting that someone as arrogant as Gaetano is accusing me of having a chip on my shoulder when he is the one that has come to the site and with his very first comment levels insults at all American soldiers has since then continued to direct his insults at me and other commenters.
If Gaetano is wondering why we went to Iraq in the first place it definitely shows the level of competence he has. Early on after 9/11 they administration made the decision that the war on terror was going to be broad reaching and not just limited to Al Qaeda. The administration overthrew the Saddam Hussein regime to install a friendly government to send a message to the rest of the Middle East as part of the broader war on terror. They used the WMD case to sell it because it was a “slam dunk” instead of stating their real intentions.
You are quick to list what hasn’t gone right but dismiss things that have been positive such as Libya giving up terrorism and their WMD program. The Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, the decimation of Al Qaeda fighters in Iraq, the joint US-Filipino operations that has helped to crush Abu Sayef, the near collapse of FARC in Columbia to name a few more things that have gone well in regards to the wider war on terror launched by the Bush administration.
Will Iraq ultimately become a strategic victory for the US? I don’t know and you don’t know either. Anyone claiming victory or defeat as this point right now are political partisans like yourself more interested in the next election then any strategic victory for the US. I recommend reading Douglas Feith’s book which lays out the facts on why the administration went to war, not that you care.
The left’s idolization of General Fallon continues to be amusing when his comments about General Petraeus were proven false not to mention these comments he made about President Bush and General Petraeus in this CNN interview I recommend everyone read:
Your “voice of reason” supports exactly what the US military is doing right now in Iraq. I wonder why the left’s media outlets have not mentioned this? Better try next time.
Also your continued complaints about Kirkuk and other issues in Iraq are amusing considering you think an artificial timeline will solve them all instantaneously which is naïve to say the least. Kirkuk is a microcosm of Iraq with various actors with various agendas that has to be handled slowly, deliberately, and carefully just like many other issues in Iraq that will not be solved overnight.
Maliki understands this and for example is working on spending Iraqi reconstruction money slowly and deliberately to prevent corruption:
If Maliki just started throwing money at the issues of Iraq like the US government did early on in the war it would just be wasted in corruption. However since Maliki is trying to wisely spend the nation’s oil wealth you complain he is not spending enough. Just like with every issue in Iraq political partisans like yourself will find something to complain about and refuse to acknowledge the hard work of those over there bringing about positive developments because you can’t see past the next election.
9:51 am on July 31st, 2008 33
Goodness gracious GI!!! So much nonsense so little time to respond to it all. I’ll just have highlight a few of your precious moments of ludicrousness and leave it at that.
Exhibit A:
“Early on after 9/11 they administration made the decision that the war on terror was going to be broad reaching and not just limited to Al Qaeda. The administration overthrew the Saddam Hussein regime to install a friendly government to send a message to the rest of the Middle East as part of the broader war on terror.”
Yes, GI, they sure did send a message. By invading and removing Saddam, they irrevocably altered the balance of power that had existed in the Middle East and not for the better. Are usual steadfast allies the Egyptians, Jordanians, and the Saudis are now in the midst of being eclipsed by a Shia revival from Lebanon to Iran. Second, by invading Iraq, the Bush administration in effect has shackled the ability of the United States to make credible threats of the use of military force when diplomatically dealing with our enemies. They Syrian, Iranians, and North Koreans know full well that the military option is bluff through and through. Most importantly, the invasion of Iraq has only inflammed anti-American sentiments in the very region we were ostensibly out to “shock and awe” into fearful submission.
Exhibit B:
“You are quick to list what hasn’t gone right but dismiss things that have been positive such as Libya giving up terrorism and their WMD program. The Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, the decimation of Al Qaeda fighters in Iraq, the joint US-Filipino operations that has helped to crush Abu Sayef, the near collapse of FARC in Columbia to name a few more things that have gone well in regards to the wider war on terror launched by the Bush administration.”
Where to begin with this one.
First, if you want to cite the invasion of Iraq as the reason that Libya has given up its WMD programs and support for terror, then your again engaging in a very shallow logical reasoning. If, as you contend, Libya gave up all its nasty shenanigans solely due to the invasion of Iraq, then why didn’t other countries in the Middle East such as Syria or Iran follow suit? Or for that matter, why didn’t East Asian third of Bush’s “Axis of Evil”-North Korea-do so as well following the invasion? The truth of the matter is, is that in the Libyan case a combination of diplomatic tools and economic sanctions is what eventually got Qaddafi to turn.
Second, I’ve touched on it before but I’ll reiterate for your much needed edification: Yes, I’m aware of the Cedar Revolution that occured in Lebanon. But your fail to acknowledge, GI, the events that have come after the Cedar Revolution. Simply put, it’s not the Western leaning liberals who are in charge of the country but rather Hassan Nasrallah and Hezbollah.
Third, the issue concerning the Abu Sayef is in many ways a conflict that is very seperate from GWOT. If anything, what your dealing with in the Phillipines is a sepratist movement. Not some transnational, revolutionary nihlistic movement like Al-Qaeda. If fact, one of the big problems that war hawks such as yourself make when you talk about all these disparate Islamist movements from the Horn of Africa, to Indonesia, to Pakistan, to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is that you lump them all together as if they’re all part of one big monolith. The fact is that they are not. And in a lot of instances certain groups vehemently hate other groups.
Fourth. Yes Al-Qaeda in Iraq has been significantly weakend but they have recouped in the Pakistani FATA and still have operational vitality.
Fifth. The near collapse of the FARC in Columbia preceeds the beginning of GWOT. In many ways, the routing of the FARC began with the introduction of Plan Columbia under Columbia president Andres Pastrana in the late 90’s. Moreover, it was under the Bill Clinton administration that 1.3 billion in aid begin to pour into Columbia to fight its drug war.
Exhibit C:
Your attempt to spin the reasons for Fallons departure as CENTCOM commander is cute but nonetheless unconvincing. Don’t you find it the least bit odd that he served only a year as CENTCOM commander and was uncermoniously let go? It’s obvious that he had serious policy disagreements with the Bush adminstration. Even a dyed-in-the-wool neoconservative, Iraq War cheerleader such as Max Boot surmised as much.
Don’t believe me? Go read it for yourself:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-boot12mar12,0,5337128.story
Anyways, that’s all that I seem to have time for at the moment. I look forward to horsing around with you some other time. In the meantime, do make sure to take good care of that chip on your shoulder GI. After all, it’s really all that you have going for.
11:53 am on July 31st, 2008 34
You asked a question why the administration went into Iraq because you didn’t know, which is quite shocking considering how smart you claim you are and I clearly answered it and even recommended a book for you to read. The Bush administration made a conscious decision to not limit the 9/11 response to just Al Qaeda and wanted to launch a wider war on terror that would be a global response to confront terrorists as well as intimidating bad actors into not harboring them. Clearly they thought going into Iraq would be away to send that message and used the WMD issue as cover because they thought it was a “slam dunk”.
Will their strategy be proven right? It is to early to tell and could quite possibly fail. However, I clearly said that the decision to go to war is long from being determined to be a strategic success or not. Anyone who claims it to be a success or failure at this point are clearly political partisans like yourself.
The claims of increasing anti-Americanism in the Middle East is quite absurd when they were anti-American before the war even happened. Maybe you missed the celebrations in the streets after 9/11? If anything the war has discredited Al Qaeda in the Middle East due to their violent excesses in Iraq and now they have had to move the bulk of their operations out of the Middle East and into Pakistan which is yet another positive development you rather not mention.
Also if the Iranians did not take the threat of military action seriously then why did they stop their nuclear weapons development after the invasion of Iraq and reportedly shift it to Syria? They were clearly worried they were next. They obviously now are not as worried about a military strike since the release of the NIE but they clearly were then.
Also I never stated Gadhafi came clean because of the Iraq War I said it was a positive development that has occurred as part of the wider war on terror. The work to bring Libya back into the global mainstream has mostly been done by the fine work of British and French diplomats. However, Gadhafi has clearly stated that the war in Iraq played into his reasoning why he came clean:
As far as Columbia I know full well Clinton began Plan Columbia much to the consternation of the American left. Clinton should be applauded for this. Bush carried the plan even further by linking FARC to the wider war on terror, which only further antagonized the American left. The results of continuing to strongly support Columbia are becoming quite evident and it is a shame that the Democrats are willing to obstruct against measures to continue the success in Columbia.
Also once again you like to put words in my mouth I never said. This is a reoccurring them with you. For example I never said world wide terrorism is a big monolith, you did.
Also I like how you call me a “war hawk” which once again shows your level of discourse to name call anyone that disagrees with you. Just for the record I have never advocated a war with Iran when there are still clearly much better diplomatic and economic measures that have not been tried yet, not to mention how a bombing campaign would be extremely difficult considering much of Iran’s nuclear program is well buried in deep bunkers.
I have also openly advocated against a war with North Korea against people on the left that wanted to foolishly bomb them and have instead advocated for a much more reasonable policy.
Also I know my smack down of your idolization of Fallon was painful. All everyone has to do is read the CNN interview and read what Fallon says that completely discredits what you say:
To further emphasize the point here are more comments from Fallon:
He clearly stepped down because his comments in the Esquire article were misunderstood as him being against the President which he clearly is not. Fallon actually makes very good points in the Military.com article such as this:
Which he is absolutely right. I like Fallon and don’t have a problem with him but his mistake however was making comments that the media could twist to make it appear he is against the President, which he has once again clearly stated he isn’t.
So Gaetano by idolizing Fallon then that must mean you also support the current Iraq policy because Fallon has clearly said he supports it as well as General Petraeus. There is a reason why the left no longer mentions Fallon and this is it, I guess you didn’t get the memo.
It is also fitting you ended your comment with yet another arrogant statement which appears to be what you excel at. I guess it only fitting you work for a Congress with a 9% approval rating last I checked.
12:35 pm on July 31st, 2008 35
I couldn’t resist…
Invading Iraq has shown the threat of force is a bluff through and through? How does that work exactly? Did we not prove, finally, we were willing to back up threats (and UN resolutions) by use of force? Having bases in Iraq to stage from doesn’t make military action more feasible?
On the hating us more issue — did you miss the tens of thousands who trained for jihad in Afghanistan throughout the 1990s? We are qualitatively more hated than before? Can you demonstrate how it is worse — how it is making us more vulnerable - either politically or security wise?
“First, if you want to cite the invasion of Iraq as the reason that Libya has given up its WMD programs and support for terror, then your again engaging in a very shallow logical reasoning. If, as you contend, Libya gave up all its nasty shenanigans solely due to the invasion of Iraq, then why didn’t other countries in the Middle East such as Syria or Iran follow suit? ”
Is this Kushibora? —- if not — it is him in spirit…
Putting other people down, regularly, for being logically challenged - then coming up with an utter beatu like “so why hasn’t Syria given up its weapons too?” — oh — and also the usually Kushibora line of attack like in “soletly due to”…
1:13 pm on July 31st, 2008 36
I too like Adm. Fallon and find him to be an honorable figure. That’s why I find his statements to CNN totally unsuprising, unlike you GI. Because he is an honorable man, I wouldn’t expect him to go public and do a Scott McClellan or Paul O’Neill and bad mouthing the man he formerly served simply because things didn’t go his way.
Listen, when even a guy like Max Boot(no lefty mind you)is saying that Fallon was dismissed due to policy differences with other Bush administration officials, it should be clear that things weren’t all well.
And on a final point concerning Fallon, I’d like to address this statements that you made:
“He clearly stepped down because his comments in the Esquire article were misunderstood as him being against the President which he clearly is not.”
“I like Fallon and don’t have a problem with him but his mistake however was making comments that the media could twist to make it appear he is against the President…”
Sorry, GI, but this line of reasoning is hogwash. Maybe it’s because you haven’t ever worked in DC, but if a senior official makes comments that are construed by the media as being at odds with that of his superior, that senior official then doesn’t go and resign his position to only give more credibility to such notions. On the contrary, GI, that official goes and makes strong clarifying statements that he supports his boss and puts and end to the media speculation and spin, if it be the case that he/she is sync with their superior. In the situation you describe, GI, resignation would be the stupidest thing possible.
But then again, GI, you are military and we all know about the oxymoron “military intelligence”.
By the way GI, I also had to chuckle at this other idiotic statement of yours:
“If anything the war has discredited Al Qaeda in the Middle East due to their violent excesses in Iraq and now they have had to move the bulk of their operations out of the Middle East and into Pakistan which is yet another positive development you rather not mention.”
I’m sorry, GI, but how is it any way a “positive development” that Al-Qaeda has now moved it’s operations into Pakistan? Are you aware of the enomority of the violence that this being unleashed on your fellow troops in Afghanistan? Are you oblivious to the real problem of having a ruthless terrorist organization in a state with a nuclear aresenal? Are you unware of the real danger that exists of having an Al-Qaeda that has links with tribal militants, who in turn of have links with Pakistan’s ISI for the United States and our allies in South Asia? If not, maybe you should try and get your hands on that memo.
HonestlyGI, when I here you make astoundingly stupid statements like this, I really start to wonder if a GI education bill is really doing its intended purpose for individuals like you.
Concerning the matter with Libya, the quote you provide does nothing to prove your point. If you actually read it yourself, GI, you’d realize it’s an interview where Qaddafi is being his usual mealy mouthed self. Note that the passage states that Qaddafi says the Iraq war MAY have had an effect.
Truth of the matter is, the disarmament of Libya was a process that was occuring before the onset of the Iraq war. According to Martin Indyk of the Brookings Institute:
“…Libyan representatives offered to surrender WMD programmes more than four years ago, at the outset of secret negotiations with US officials. In May 1999, their offer was officially conveyed to the US government at the peak of the “12 years of diplomacy with Iraq” that Mr. Bush now disparages.”
That’s all for now GI. Look forward to hearing new shrill pronouncements from you in the future.
2:07 pm on July 31st, 2008 37
Even if Mr. Calabresi were more accurate in his analysis than others, which I am not claiming he is, his haughty spirit and condescending tone give one a window into the rottenness one finds in Washington’s halls of power. It’s written somewhere: pride comes before destruction and a haughty looks before a fall. One can only hope there are still a significant number of people in the capital with a contrite spirit and humble heart. If this sounds too preachy, I make no apologies.
2:19 pm on July 31st, 2008 38
Whatever “In Seoul”.
What doesn’t stop to amaze me is the rank hypocrisy that’s being displayed bloggers and commentators alike. When it’s you guys who find something distasteful or irritating about Korea, you people dish out far worse bile and invective than my “haughty spirit and condescending tone”.
I think I see what’s going on here “In Seoul”, when people like you want engage in “analysis” of Korea, you grant yourself liberal permission to say whatever you want, however you want. But when it’s others who are critiquing or analyzing positions you’re taking, the utmost courtesy, deference, and respect should be paid.
In other words, you can dish it but you can’t take it.
8:58 am on August 1st, 2008 39
Mr. Calabresi, I do enjoy reading your blogs. If there is truth to what you say, I suppose I have to make the necessary adjustments in my own thinking. However, in light of the fact that I have a vested interest in Korea, a wife and child, I think you are a little off in your analysis of the motive for my comment. However, I can understand the offense you may have taken.
9:33 am on August 1st, 2008 40
It is interesting that Gaetano now has added mind reading to his resume. I clearly showed statement after statement where Fallon says he supports the President and yet Gaetano through his amazing mind reading abilities says he doesn’t.
Fallon obviously didn’t agree with the President on every issue just like I have not agreed with all of the bosses I have had, however I don’t air my disagreements in Esquire magazine. If Fallon didn’t do the Esquire interview he would most likely still be in his old position today.
It is also interesting how you failed to address the fact that Fallon supports my position and not yours.
Also using your own logic about me not working in DC, since you don’t serve in the military you obviously should not be commenting about military matters. Especially when you make comments that delivering a strategic defeat to Al Qaeda in the Middle East is not a positive development.
10:03 am on August 5th, 2008 41
It’s not mind reading GI. If anything it’s called reading credible press accounts and having the opportunity to speak with senior officials who were privy to inside information.
From the NYT:
“Adm. William J. Fallon, the commander of American forces in the Middle East whose outspoken public statements on Iran and other issues had seemed to put him at odds with the Bush administration, is retiring early, the Pentagon announced Tuesday.
Admiral Fallon had rankled senior officials of the Bush administration in recent months with comments that emphasized diplomacy over conflict in dealing with Iran, that endorsed further troop withdrawals from Iraq beyond those already under way and that suggested the United States had taken its eye off the military mission in Afghanistan.
A senior administration official said that, taken together, the comments ‘left the perception he had a different foreign policy than the president.’”
There you have it GI. From the New York Times and a senior administration official: Fallon had policy differences with administration officials therefore he resigned.
Moreover, I have friends and acquaintences inside the Office of the Secretary of Defense who are well informed on the day-to-day comings and goings of the Pentagon’s senior commanders. It was clear to them, as should be clear to you by now, that “Fox” Fallon wasn’t a Bush team player. I’ve had conversations with these friends where they discussed the calls they would get from White House staff expressing frustrations at some of the things Fallon would say in National Security meetings.
As to the issue that because I don’t serve in the military I shouldn’t be commenting on military issues, well frankly it’s fascist bullshit. Last time I checked US armed forces are under civilian control. So whether you like it or not, those not in uniform will comment and criticize as they see fit.
Futhermore, the general issues of Iraq, GWOT, or other foreign policy issues are not solely military matters. Is there a military component? Most assuredly. But it is but a mere aspect. Not the whole kit and kaboodle as you would like fancy.
Finally, let me ask you again: Yes, Al Qaeda has suffered a setback in the Middle East, a positive development to be sure. But how is it a “positive development” that they now have reconstituted in a politically volatile and unstable South Asian country?