I'm glad this thread was ressurected because I'm not done with it, not by a long shot. I'd like to reply to some of Will's newest comments, but there's something else that needs to be said first. I make no apologies for the length of this post. I'm sorry to report that it is filled with facts, which I know are not very popular around here.
The main thing I came back here for was to tell Lothar that he is the one who owes the apology. Lothar, you accused me of hitting you with a string of insults. What I actually did was hit you with a string of facts. See, I'll apologize to you when this whole "stay the course" thing turns Iraq around from the steaming quagmire it has become (gee, where have I heard that quagmire word before?). In the meantime, I submit that it is you, Lothar, who owes the apology. Not to me. But to everyone in this forum to whom you have peddled the kind of stinking crap in this thread that you try to pass off as reasoned opinion. To everyone in this country who was duped by rubbish being peddled by the current administration you owe an apology, for denying the truth of the situation, and putting down those who questioned what was happening. So take that string of "insults", ignore the content, and stick it where the sun don't shine. It's better that than the string of American and Iraqi corpses and mangled bodies that should haunt your days as the shocking incompetence of the administration in Iraq becomes more apparent.
I've read the ISG Study. Read every word. Frankly, even I am shocked and I was already convinced of how bad things were. By reading the ISG Study I was actually taking Lothar's advice, truly; to only listen to people who have been over there, the one's who really know what's going on. The ISG Report indicates plainly that the situation in Iraq is deteriorating, and the report does so in terms that are totally restrained, understated even. What you find when you read that report is that the country is in a chaotic state that threatens total breakdown. What you find in the report is that things are
worse than has been reported in the media.
So let's take a look at the ISG Report and lay bare Lothar's deception and show why he should not be believed on Iraq. Just keep in mind that these excerpts from the ISG Report only scratch the surface.
ISG Report wrote:...In addition, there is significant underreporting of the violence in Iraq. The standard for recording attacks acts as a filter to keep events out of reports and databases. A murder of an Iraqi is not necessarily counted as an attack. If we cannot determine the source of a sectarian attack, that assault does not make it into the database. A roadside bomb or a rocket or mortar attack that doesn’t hurt U.S. personnel doesn’t count. For example, on one day in July 2006 there were 93 attacks or significant acts of violence reported. Yet a careful review of the reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence. Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy
goals.
The media couldn't possibly inject enough liberal bias into their reporting to compensate for such outright deception by the administration. Lothar should not be trusted on Iraq because he parots the administrations lies and deception. When shown in the light of truth it illustrates the utter incompetence that has plagued the entire expedition from the start. It's not even so much that the strategy has failed; setbacks are expected in war. The real travesty is that there was no acknowledgement that errors were made and new direction needed. There was no comprehensive strategy in place to absorb the damage caused by setbacks. Further, there was no contingency planning to respond to the setbacks! There was just Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, oh and the Lothars of the world to belittle us for doubting them. All we got was a new slogan every so often. Here's a slogan for ya: same sh!t, different package.
Here is another example of just how great the strategy in Iraq has been working:
ISG Report wrote:Violence in Baghdad—already at high levels—jumped more than 43 percent
between the summer and October 2006. U.S. forces continue to suffer high casualties. Perpetrators of violence leave neighborhoods in advance of security sweeps, only to filter back later. Iraqi police have
been unable or unwilling to stop such infiltration and continuing violence. The Iraqi Army has provided only two out of the six battalions that it promised in August would join American forces in Baghdad. The Iraqi government has rejected sustained security operations in Sadr City.
Security efforts will fail unless the Iraqis have both the capability to hold areas that
have been cleared and the will to clear neighborhoods that are home to Shiite militias.
U.S. forces can “clear” any neighborhood, but there are neither enough U.S. troops present
nor enough support from Iraqi security forces to “hold” neighborhoods so cleared. The
same holds true for the rest of Iraq. Because none of the operations conducted by U.S. and
Iraqi military forces are fundamentally changing the conditions encouraging the sectarian
violence, U.S. forces seem to be caught in a mission that has no foreseeable end.
No foreseeable end! Tell ya what, Lothar...you go over there and fight for Bush please. Your children can join you at your side in 18 years and they can join the fight too. At this rate there will be plenty of need for soldiers to die for nothing over there in Iraq or wherever such pinheaded thinking governs strategy. Oh well, what's 24,000 casualties when we have a good Christian anti-abortion, fag-oppressing President, right?
There are worse things than having our dudes die for nothing in Iraq when we leave it in total disarray (or worse, arrayed against us!). Try this:
ISG Report wrote:Terrorism could grow. As one Iraqi official told us, “Al Qaeda is now a franchise in Iraq,
like McDonald’s.” Left unchecked, al Qaeda in Iraq could continue to incite violence between
Sunnis and Shia. A chaotic Iraq could provide a still stronger base of operations for terrorists
who seek to act regionally or even globally. Al Qaeda will portray any failure by the United
States in Iraq as a significant victory that will be featured prominently as they recruit for their
cause in the region and around the world. Ayman al-Zawahiri, deputy to Osama bin Laden, has
declared Iraq a focus for al Qaeda: they will seek to expel the Americans and then spread “the
jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.” A senior European official told us that
failure in Iraq could incite terrorist attacks within his country.
The global standing of the United States could suffer if Iraq descends further into chaos.
Iraq is a major test of, and strain on, U.S. military, diplomatic, and financial capacities.
Perceived failure there could diminish America’s credibility and influence in a region that is the
center of the Islamic world and vital to the world’s energy supply. This loss would reduce
America’s global influence at a time when pressing issues in North Korea, Iran, and elsewhere
demand our full attention and strong U.S. leadership of international alliances. And the longer
that U.S. political and military resources are tied down in Iraq, the more the chances for
American failure in Afghanistan increase.
oh, ★■◆●....
Now not only do we fail our mission in Iraq, but having done so, terrorism is now a bigger problem, and meanwhile, we lose credibility and influence throughout the world. Perfect!
Let's change gears slightly...What did Osama think he would gain by the 9-11 attacks? What did Osama think would be the U.S. response? Hell, the U.S. was isolationist pre-WWII and we still whoopassed Japan after Pearl Harbor. He had to know we would respond militarily. What if he was counting on it? What if he was counting on just the type of outcome unfolding before us today? What if in our short-sightedness we have played right into his hands. Would that surprise any of you? Would you dismiss it out of hand?
I don't. Read the following...
ISG Report wrote:We recognize that there are other results of the war in Iraq that have great consequence for our
nation. One consequence has been the stress and uncertainty imposed on our military—the most
professional and proficient military in history. The United States will need its military to
protect U.S. security regardless of what happens in Iraq. We therefore considered how to limit
the adverse consequences of the strain imposed on our military by the Iraq war.
U.S. military forces, especially our ground forces, have been stretched nearly to the
breaking point by the repeated deployments in Iraq, with attendant casualties (almost 3,000 dead
and more than 21,000 wounded), greater difficulty in recruiting, and accelerated wear on
equipment.
Additionally, the defense budget as a whole is in danger of disarray, as supplemental
funding winds down and reset costs become clear. It will be a major challenge to meet ongoing
requirements for other current and future security threats that need to be accommodated together
with spending for operations and maintenance, reset, personnel, and benefits for active duty and
retired personnel. Restoring the capability of our military forces should be a high priority for the
United States at this time.
Also,
ISG Report wrote:...the United States faces other security dangers in the world,
and a continuing Iraqi commitment of American ground forces at present levels will leave no
reserve available to meet other contingencies. On September 7, 2006, General James Jones, our
NATO commander, called for more troops in Afghanistan, where U.S. and NATO forces are
fighting a resurgence of al Qaeda and Taliban forces. The United States should respond
positively to that request, and be prepared for other security contingencies, including those in
Iran and North Korea.
Second, the long-term commitment of American ground forces to Iraq at current levels is
adversely affecting Army readiness, with less than a third of the Army units currently at high
readiness levels. The Army is unlikely to be able to meet the next rotation of troops in Iraq
without undesirable changes in its deployment practices. The Army is now considering breaking
its compact with the National Guard and Reserves that limits the number of years that these
citizen-soldiers can be deployed. Behind this short-term strain is the longer-term risk that the
ground forces will be impaired in ways that will take years to reverse.
Our Army buckling under the strain of Iraq. Questionable readiness to address security problems outside Iraq. Our military capability in need of restoration. Sounds like the best Al Quaeda could have hoped for. Could they have foreseen this? Why didn't we when three years ago on this very board I sounded the alarm that the administration was demonstrating incomepetenece on Iraq. The outcome of my modest claims for oversight? I was dismissed by all the little Lothars and sometimes belittled for questioning the administration. The current failure in Iraq couldn't have happened without such servile devotion to spreading administration propaganda at the grass roots level.
But back to the report...One of the conclusions of the report was that American policy failed on a basic level to establish diplomatic efforts in the region. Intelligence gathering was also criticized - not the pre-invasion stuff that no one even disputes any more, but the
current intelligence on the ground in Iraq! Surely by now we must have ample civilian and military experts working with Iraqis to reign in all these problems?
Nope.
ISG Report wrote:All of our efforts in Iraq, military and civilian, are handicapped by Americans’ lack of
language and cultural understanding. Our embassy of 1,000 has 33 Arabic speakers, just six of
whom are at the level of fluency. In a conflict that demands effective and efficient communication
with Iraqis, we are often at a disadvantage. There are still far too few Arab language– proficient
military and civilian officers in Iraq, to the detriment of the U.S. mission...
A senior commander told us that human intelligence in Iraq has improved from 10 percent
to 30 percent. Clearly, U.S. intelligence agencies can and must do better. As mentioned above,
an essential part of better intelligence must be improved language and cultural skills. As an
intelligence analyst told us, “We rely too much on others to bring information to us, and too
often don’t understand what is reported back because we do not understand the context of what
we are told.”
The Defense Department and the intelligence community have not invested sufficient -people
and resources to understand the political and military threat to American men and women
in the armed forces. Congress has appropriated almost $2 billion this year for countermeasures to
protect our troops in Iraq against improvised explosive devices, but the administration has not
put forward a request to invest comparable resources in trying to understand the people who
fabricate, plant, and explode those devices.
There is currently poor intelligence in Iraq? Not too shocking when you consider that's what landed us there in the first place!
It's time that we started fighting Al Qaeda with some sense. This administration has so far treated the war on terror in an analgous way to the major powers approach to the First World War. Over the top of the trench with everyone and straight into the machine guns! I'm not referring to casualties or necessarily to tactics on the battlefield. I'm referring to the way that in WWI, life (and effort) was wasted when it was so clear that it served no purpose. Yet those in power refused to think differently. They refused to consider tactics outside their preconceived plans (the German's own Schlieffen plan dated back originally to the 1890's). In the modern day it is as if Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are treating Al Qaeda as if they were the same type of enemy we have faced in past conflicts, to be frontally assaulted regardless of the evidence that a more subtle, nuanced approach is required.
The recommendations of the ISG should be reviewed and largely adopted. Beyond that, the true spirit of America requires that each of us demand better from our representatives. We need to demand inquiry into what has happened and oversight of what is to come.
