Some stories defy excerpting, so I will just provide a link and tell you to go read the whole thing. Remember, we supposedly dumped X thousand troops into Baghdad so that we could keep the violence down. It didn’t work – no political progress was made, no rapport has formed between the warring factions, deaths are up any way you choose to count them (coalition, Iraqi army, Iraqi civilians) and a company of soldiers cannot move four miles through Baghdad without running through multiple ambushes.
Tell me, when the enemy chooses when and where to hit us, moves around at will and tightly contrains our ability to simply move our forces, who has the initiative? By hitting the same convoy once, twice and even three times in a single patrol the enemy clearly shows that he is not afraid of us. By choosing our convoy routes to avoid the enemy and barricading most of our forces behind fortress FOBs we show that we are afraid of them. And this is the best we can do. Readiness limitations will soon draw down our troops no matter what the boy king wants.
The writing is on the wall, in the sky, hanging over the road in giant blinking neon lights. Put a fork in this war. It’s done.
Nash
Look! Sheehan!
ThymeZone
Yes, we said this, here on these very pages, 2.5 years ago.
Today, this works better: Put a fork in Bush. He’s done.
Seriously. Is he not the lamest duck we’ve ever seen? Right now it’s a race between the Bush “administration” and the Iraq government to see which one can accomplish the least in the next 18 months.
I wouldn’t count either one of them out, they are both strong contenders for World Champions of Ineptitude.
Billy K
Awesome! Maybe by 2008, when Bush is (hopefully) out of office, we can slightly reduce our troop numbers!
I appreciate the commentary, but soldiers are gonna be dying there for at least two more years. Iraquis are gonna be dying for much, much longer. It’s hard to see this as any sort of “victory” or “progress” for the GTFO of Iraq camp.
scarshapedstar
I guess that’s true. It’s also true that if the entire Antarctic ice shelf were to slip into the ocean and inundate every city on Earth within 50 miles of the coast, it wouldn’t be “victory” or “progress” for environmentalists.
But sometimes, when you’re up against an unrelentingly smarmy foe who whines about civility and giving the war one last Friedman for four fucking years and the entire Kafkaesque debate is covered by a media whose highest virtue is placing lies on a pedestal right next to the truth, well, you start to settle for the public hating the guts of these motherfuckers as much as you do.
Dennis-SGMM
Whatever the situation, we can count on Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker to report signs of progress in their September Report. As long as the don’t specify who’s making the most progress they’ll be fine.
Six more months and we’ll turn the corner so that we can see the light at the end of the tunnel.
ThymeZone
Let’s keep our metrics consistent.
Fe E
post of the week imho
zzyzx
Ummmm, National Review says today that we really are winning this time. The law of averages says they have to be right one of these times.
My favorite part about those articles are that they don’t bother telling you that they’re contradicting all of their other articles when they say that the corner has finally been turned.
I also like the open ended commitment implied. If it’ll get worse if we leave and we can’t allow that, we must stay forever no matter what…
Crust
Make that no matter what the boy king and his regent want.
chopper
wait, joementum says we’re winning. what gives?
tBone
Hey, lay off Iraqi politicians. They’re taking positive steps for the future, like urging Iraqis to arm themselves; that can only end well.
Meanwhile, the Decider will soon have a new report that he can decisively ignore. It’s hard work, having to constantly disregard pesky facts that keep trying to penetrate your hermetically-sealed alternate reality. You should be more sensitive, TZ.
Andrew
Unfortunately, the law of averages is completely subsumed by the overarching Law of the National Review is Full of Complete Fucking Idiots.
srv
Wow. The US Ambassador just said we’re in the first reel of Saw II in Iraq.
I don’t even know what to say anymore.
Zifnab
I don’t even know. Petraeus has come out repeatedly calling this war akin to the British fighting the IRA or the conflict between North and South Korea. I don’t think I’ve seen a report from Petraeus yet that has suggested we’ll be leaving in less than a decade if we want to “finish the job”.
Whatever may be said about the man, he’s one of the most honest people on the wingnut side of the debate.
Bubblegum Tate
But…but…the wingnuts say just achieving victory in Iraq–and you want to surrender post-victory! Not even turning a corner, fuck turning a corner, we’ve got victory afoot, you Islamocommie!
Billy K
I see what you’re saying, but if he were TRULY honest, wouldn’t he say that we’ll never acieve “victory” without three times the number of troops, a national draft, and by using brutal Saddam-like techniques to suppress the population.
Andrew
Petraeus is a mendacious asshole.
I’m sick of hearing about how he’s a great and smart guy who is going to fix things.
He has continually lied to the American public.
ThymeZone
I do. You really have to watch two seasons of this war and its surges to know whether it’s really any good.
ThymeZone
But, he wrote the book on counterinsurgency!
He cannot be contradicted. Ever. Period.
Why do you hate Amurrica?
ThymeZone
Oh, and BTW Andrew, let’s not have any more of that carping about how a “date for withdrawal just tells the enemy our plans.”
After all, they can buy our ENTIRE COUNTERINSURGENCY MANUAL ON AMAZON FOR CHRIST’S FUCKING SAKE!
Zifnab
Hey, its not his fault the wingnuts have set the bar so low.
Cain
“America good! Al-Qaeda bad!”
Apparently is the new basis that Rich Lowry believes that we are showing signs that the surge is working because Sunni’s are no longer being bullied by bad old Al Qaeda types forcing them to do mean things to everyone because we strong Americans are around.
I don’t know how many fucking times Rich has told us that we are turning the corner and things are improve. He has no credibility.
Enjoy
http://author.nationalreview.com/latest/?q=MjE1NQ==
cain
Bubblegum Tate
True. And honestly, if we had had Petraeus in charge from the get-go, we would likely be in a better position now. Certainly not the pony parades the Bushies promised us–nothing would achieve that–but we would’ve at least been spared this idiotic, grabasstic way of fighting war on the cheap.
RLaing
The war is still killing 10,000 to 30,000 Iraqis a month, plus around 100 Americans. I wouldn’t call it ‘done’ just yet.
Also, COUNTERINSURGENCY MANUAL is not being followed, so it doesn’t matter who wrote it, what it says or where it can be found.
Andrew
We wouldn’t? Bush wouldn’t have completely screwed up every aspect of reconstruction and the political reconciliation?
You could have had the best parts of MacArthur, Patton, Eisenhower, and Nimitz cloned into a single super-leader and put in charge of Iraq and I don’t think a damn thing would be better.
Hint: There is not and there has never been a military solution.
Jake
Fixed.
Zifnab
conumbdrum
Oh, man… Cain is dead on the money here. You folks have got to read this pile of piffle from Little Miss Sunshine Lowry. According to Rich… wait, I’ll just let him tell it:
Wonder if the trader managed to make a sale?
Jake
Yeah. ‘Cos when people are afraid to express an opinion against The Terrist that is a sure sign FreedumNDimocrucy (TM) is on the march.
Tsulagi
Every commanding general starting with Abizaid in 04 including Petraeus a few months ago has said the military can’t do it alone, that there is not an entirely US military solution to Iraq.
After Saddam’s statue fell, to bring stability we needed ground troops in sufficient numbers to provide security and prevent an insurgency from developing, an intelligent, competent administration working political solutions with Iraqi political leaders and government, and the Iraqi people to step up. Plus it all needed to be done quickly and competently to prevent a prolonged occupation that would create problems and resentment. Tommy Franks knew that too. After Baghdad fell, he ordered his commanders to draw plans to withdraw from Iraq as quickly as they entered.
Of the three legs needed to prop up that stool, we have one in our military, shortened early on by the admin. Then on our political side, about all this this admin did was to attack that one leg. Our own. Monumentally brain-dead decisions, CPA filled with George Deutsches and Monica Goodlings, etc. When this admin wasn’t actively fucking things up, they were absent. More than the insurgency, they’ve been the greatest enemy to our military in Iraq.
The Iraqi people haven’t stepped up. A few million, generally the more secular and professional, have bugged out of the country. Those not actively involved in the civil war seem to be taking a wait and see attitude. Guess waiting to see who comes out as top dog rather than taking a stand and risk offending the winner.
That stool was never going to stand on one leg. As far as the other two legs appearing, don’t hold your breath. As Odom has said, regardless what we do the outcome is going to be the same.
The Bush/Cheney line that they have given the military anything they have asked for and left prosecution of the war entirely up to them has been complete, utter, lying bullshit from Day One. Just another spoiled brat way to say “Not my fault.” Never happened from Franks on. Not happening with Petraeus. Even when the Pentagon started writing lessons learned there was fights over who would write them. Normally military guys do that stuff, but for the “Let History Decide” admin, it’s better if your guys like Wolfie and Feith are writing the history.
Once, Gen. Tommy Franks called Feith “the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the Earth.” Substitute “administration” for “guy” in that sentence and he would have had it completely right.
HyperIon
touché.
ThymeZone
Thot you’d get a kick out of that :)
nabalzbbfr
This is typical liberal obtuseness. At this stage of the Iraq surge, the important political groundwork is occurring at the local level with municipal/tribal/provincial governments. Enormous progress is being made there as evidenced by what is occurring in Anbar and Diyala provinces. Political progress at the Iraqi federal level is sure to follow at a later stage.
RSA
In fact, Iraq is sure to be a cakewalk one Friedman unit from now.
Professor Chaos
This is the most disturbing to me:
One explanation for such a surge in attacks: “We’re winning. They wouldn’t be fighting if we weren’t winning. They wouldn’t have a reason to,” said Lt. Col. Ralph Kauzlarich, the battalion commander. “It’s a measure of effectiveness.”
Who thinks like this?? Is he channeling Rumsfield?
I remember most officers in the army being pretty stupid, but to this level? Must be the lowered standards.
Jake
Must be the New-Age theory of war:
Though the enemy may appear to be taking a chunk out of your arse, he’s really, in some cosmic way, taking a chunk out of his own arse.
Eventually the enemy will have chewed off his own arse and victory will be complete. Groooovy!
Or maybe Kazlaurich is a big fat idiot.
Professor Chaos
I’ll go with the second answer, simple and true
I just found out, this is the same guy who helped cover up the Pat Tillman Fraticide, called Tillman “Worm Dirt”, and blamed the Tillman family’s outrage at the coverup on a lack of belief in God. What a Tool. He probably believes he’ll be fighting the End Times, “Left Behind” battle soon.
Stan Goff rips into him here: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060728_worm_dirt/