Before getting to the details, let's consider the overarching premiss: that the choice we now face is whether to keep fighting and ultimately prevail, or to withdraw and abandon the Iraqis to their fate. As I see it, this premiss is completely false. If we keep fighting, there is no reason whatsoever to think that we will "prevail", and every reason to think that we will simply sacrifice a lot of American and Iraqi lives for nothing.

I agree that Bush's speech sucked and he would be more persuasive if he addressed the core issue as stated above. The core question is whether or not there is a reason to think that we will "prevail." The correct answer is that it is simply not possible to know right now, because we've changed tactics, and the new tactical approach won't pan out enough to tell if its working until the middle of next month. Both sides seem to be intensely interested in positioning a conclusion about whether or not that tactical approach works in advance of having any evidence. This is corrupt.

For example, Hillary Clinton is positioning that we're going to withdraw even if the evidence demonstrates that if we keep fighting we'll succeed.

We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar Province, it's working. We're just years too late changing our tactics.

Media Matters, who position themselves as an antidote to political spin, actually engage in political spin on this very topic!

Zuckerman did not offer any evidence to support his claim that "the consensus is that the surge is working." In fact, members of Congress, administration officials, and experts have all stated that political reconciliation, which the Bush administration identified as a key to the success of its escalation strategy, has not occurred.

There is no relationship whatsoever between an observation about the political reconciliation and an observation about the success or failure of a military tactic. It is dishonest to conflate them. Its like saying: Zuckerman did not offer any evidence to support his claim that "the consensus is that humans evolved from lower organisms." In fact, members of Congress, administrations officials, and experts have all stated that there is no proof of global warming, another scientific "theory."

We should have changed tactics two to three years ago, and we would have if the presidential election had been carried differently. There was, in fact, every reason to change horses in the middle of that particular stream. The horses did not change, and so the strategy did not change, until after the 2006 election. You cannot undo the fact that we went to war in Iraq by pulling out. You have a potentially viable change in tactics that was the fruit of the fact that people finally got around to firing some Republicans. Now you might have an opportunity to do things right going forward, and you're not interested. You're not going to take it. You are doing everything you can to shoot it down before you know whether or not its viable. Why? Because you are too trapped by the extremism of your own political rhetoric to make the right decision?

If the surge report is positive and yet the US pulls out of Iraq anyway it will be, frankly, just as irrational and tragic as the decision to go in in the first place. Perhaps thats the history we deserve, but it just goes to show you that it really, deeply, doesn't matter which political party is in charge.

RE: Obsidian Wings: Bush's Speech

Mike the Usurper wrote:
The overall on the surge is exactly what was predicted. Violence is down slightly in the troop concentrated areas, but up in others, in other words, it's a wash. Further, the point of the surge was to buttime for the Iraqis to build a unifying government. That clearly isn't happening.

The point was to reduce violence in the troop concentrated areas. The idea is that if violence is held down in those areas that those areas can develop real economic activity in a secure environment, which hopefully won't deteriorate again when the troops leave. The idea is to provide a window of opportunity for peace to get a foodhold. The impact on the areas where troops aren't concentrated is not relevent to the way this strategy works. It is a neighborhood by neighborhood approach, not a wholistic approach. Having said that, I'd like a source for your statement that the violence level has been "a wash." Its not clear that this is the case. US casualties are down.

This strategy has absolutely nothing at all to do with government negotiations. As a military strategy it is older then the present political context by several years; it predates the 2004 election.
Trying to connect those two things together is a political fantasy.

It's working so we should get out? WTF?

I agree that this doesn't make sense. If this strategy is demonstrated to be effective in actually securing neighborhoods, we need more troops on the ground. The goal here ought to be to solve the problem in Iraq and not to win some domestic political spat. "Get out, right or wrong," is just as stupid as "Stay in, right or wrong."

Hillary is hardly a "base" Democrat if by "base" you mean left. Thats because there really is no left in the United States. The Unites States has a radical right (absolutely no taxes, government by the word of God) and a moderate right (some social programs, more tolerance in morality).

Hillary is what I call a soccer mom authoritarian. She supports more social controls and more economic controls as long as it doesn't significantly impact wall street. So did her husband. Her husband was pro government surveillance. He even ran on the prospect of federally mandated national school uniforms. Their long term vision is Singapore with equal rights for women. Really it is.

The only thing I confidently expect out of Hillary is that her statements running into the election will be extremely savvy and strategic, and will have little bearing on how she governs if elected. There is no telling what she'll actually deliver in office, but it will be driven again more by strategy than ideology. The problem is that the strategic interest in question might not actually be yours.

RE: Clinton, McCain split on Iraq pullout - Yahoo! News

After watching the Frontline documentary on the surge, take a second to consider an alternate history. Consider this comment from Kerry during the 2004 Presidential debate:

KERRY: The president just talked about Iraq as a center of the war on terror.... You don't take America to war unless have the plan to win the peace... we don't have enough troops there.

Note my comment about his comments here.

If the surge is successful but isn't allowed to continue because it is politically untennable, imagine the irony, as Bush is prevented by the Democrats from doing the thing that might have worked and would have been done had he lost to the Democrats in 2004.

washingtonpost.com - Presidential Debate Between President Bush and Sen. John F. Kerry

This is one of the most useful things I've read/seen on Iraq. Although the message is clearly driven by Republican commentators, here they aren't speaking to the choir, for once. This program explains what the surge is, what its history is, and what its strategy is, and why Bush wants to wait until September. Watch it.

FRONTLINE: endgame | PBS

The Bush administration is developing plans to "internationalise" the Iraq crisis, including an expanded role for the United Nations, as a way of reducing overall US responsibility for Iraq's future and limiting domestic political fallout from the war as the 2008 election season approaches.

The move comes amid rising concern in Washington that President George Bush's controversial Baghdad security surge, led by the US commander, General David Petraeus, is not working and that Iran is winning the clandestine battle for control of Iraq.

This is an interesting report. The problem I see here is that they are called peace keepers and not peace makers, and when misapplied they will not work. The problem remains Iran.

Bush may turn to UN in search for Iraq solution

The most explosive question about the Taliban resurgence here along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan is this: Have Pakistani intelligence agencies been promoting the Islamic insurgency?
...
Hamid Gul, the former director general of Pakistani intelligence, remains a public and unapologetic supporter of the Taliban, visiting madrasas and speaking in support of jihad at graduation ceremonies.

Afghan intelligence officials recently produced a captured insurgent who said Mr. Gul facilitated his training and logistics through an office in the Pakistani town of Nowshera, in the North-West Frontier Province, west of the capital, Islamabad.

NATO and American officials in Afghanistan say there is also evidence of support from current midlevel Pakistani intelligence officials. Just how far up that support reaches remains in dispute.

At Border, Signs of Pakistani Role in Taliban Surge - New York Times

Stratfor: Geopolitical Intelligence Report - January 4, 2007

The 'Surge Strategy': Political Arguments and Military Realities

By George Friedman

U.S. President George W. Bush is preparing a new strategy for Iraq.
According to reports being leaked to the media, the primary option
being considered is a "surge strategy," in which U.S. troop levels
in Iraq would be increased, particularly in the Baghdad region. The
numbers of additional troops that would deploy -- or that would not
be rotated home -- are unclear, but appear to be in the low tens of
thousands. This "surge" strategy is interesting in that it runs
counter to general expectations after the midterm elections in
November, when it appeared that the president was tied to a phased
withdrawal plan. Instead, Bush seems to have decided to attempt to
break out of the military gridlock in which the United States finds
itself. Therefore, the questions now are why the president is
considering this strategy and whether it will work.

As we have discussed previously, the United States appears to have
four strategic options in Iraq:

1. Massively increase the number of troops in Iraq, attempting to
break the back of both the Sunni insurgents and the Shiite militias
and create room for a political settlement.

2. Begin a withdrawal process that allows the Iraqis to shape the
politics of the country as they will -- and that leaves a huge
opportunity for Iran to fill the vacuum.

3. Abandon attempts to provide security for Iraq but retain forces
there, in a redeployed posture, with the goal of blocking any
potential Iranian moves toward the Arabian Peninsula.

4. Attempt to reach a political accommodation with Tehran that
concedes Iraq to the Iranian sphere of influence, in order to
provide guarantees against Iranian expansion southward. This
diplomatic option is compatible with all others.

Each of these options has strengths and weakness. The first option,
the surge, rests on the assumption that the United States has
enough troops available to make a difference on the ground in Iraq;
it also would decrease the strategic reserve for dealing with other
crises around the world. The phased withdrawal option eliminates
the need for Iraqi Shia and Iran to engage in political discussion
-- since, given time, U.S. forces would depart from Iraq and the
Shia would be the dominant force. The blocking strategy puts the
United States in the position of protecting Saudi Arabia (a Sunni
kingdom that doesn't want to appear to be seeking such protection)
against Iran -- a Shiite state that could, in that situation,
choose the time and place for initiating conflict. In other words,
this option would put U.S. forces on a strategic defensive in
hostile areas. The fourth option, diplomacy, assumes so... [ Read More (1.6k in body) ]

Stratfor: Geopolitical Intelligence Report - August 8, 2006

Break Point: What Went Wrong

By George Friedman

On May 23, we published a Geopolitical Intelligence Report titled "
Break Point ." In that article, we wrote: "It is now nearly
Memorial Day. The violence in Iraq will surge, but by July 4 there
either will be clear signs that the Sunnis are controlling the
insurgency -- or there won't. If they are controlling the
insurgency, the United States will begin withdrawing troops in
earnest. If they are not controlling the insurgency, the United
States will begin withdrawing troops in earnest. Regardless of
whether the [political settlement] holds, the U.S. war in Iraq is
going to end: U.S. troops either will not be needed, or will not be
useful. Thus, we are at a break point -- at least for the
Americans."

In our view, the fundamental question was whether the Sunnis would
buy into the political process in Iraq. We expected a sign, and we
got it in June, when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed -- in our
view, through intelligence provided by the Sunni leadership. The
same night al-Zarqawi was killed, the Iraqis announced the
completion of the Cabinet: As part of a deal that finalized the
three security positions (defense, interior and national security),
the defense ministry went to a Sunni. The United States followed
that move by announcing a drawdown of U.S. forces from Iraq,
starting with two brigades. All that was needed was a similar
signal of buy-in from the Shia -- meaning they would place controls
on the Shiite militias that were attacking Sunnis. The break point
seemed very much to favor a political resolution in Iraq.

It never happened. The Shia, instead of reciprocating the Sunni and
American gestures, went into a deep internal crisis. Shiite groups
in Basra battled over oil fields. They fought in Baghdad. We
expected that the mainstream militias under the Supreme Council for
Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) would gain control of the
dissidents and then turn to political deal-making. Instead, the
internal Shiite struggle resolved itself in a way we did not
expect: Rather than reciprocating with a meaningful political
gesture, the Shia intensified their attacks on the Sunnis. The
Sunnis, clearly expecting this phase to end, held back -- and then
cut loose with their own retaliations. The result was, rather than
a political settlement, civil war. The break point had broken away
from a resolution.

Part of the explanation is undoubtedly to be found in Iraq itself.
The prospect of a centralized government, even if dominated by the
majority Shia, does not seem to have been as attractive to Iraqi
Shia as absolute regional control, which would guarantee them all
of the revenues from the southern oil fields, rather ... [ Read More (2.1k in body) ]

I do NOT plan to get in the habit of regularly reposting Stratfor's emails, but this one is extremely relevant to conversations we've been having on this site for a long time. (BTW, I'm not really sure if thats the first time that idea appeared here or if I'm really responsible for originating it. Its just the earliest link that I have. I think I was thinking that a long time before I said it. I said it when it became so obvious it seemed like review.)

Once again, let me start with one of the last sentances: Finally, the ability of grassroots cells to network across international boundaries, and even across oceans, presents the possibility that al Qaeda 4.0 cells could, now or in the future, pose a significant threat even without a central leadership structure -- meaning, a structure that can be identified, monitored and attacked

Stratfor: Terrorism Intelligence Report - June 7, 2006

Al Qaeda: The Next Phase of Evolution?

By Fred Burton

Canadian authorities recently arrested 17 men, accusing them of
planning terrorist attacks, after some members of the group bought
what they believed to be some 3 tons of ammonium nitrate
fertilizer, which can be used to make explosives. The men allegedly
were planning attacks against symbolic targets in Toronto and
Ottawa in a plot that reportedly included bombings, armed assaults
and beheadings.

One of the things that make this case interesting is that the group
-- now dubbed by the media as the "Canada 17" -- reportedly had
connections to alleged jihadists in other countries, whose earlier
arrests were widely reported. Those connections included two men
from the United States -- Ehsanul Islam Sadequee and Syed Haris
Ahmed -- who reportedly traveled from Georgia in March 2005 to meet
with Islamist extremists in Toronto. Authorities have said they
conspired to attend a militant training camp in Pakistan and
discussed potential terrorist targets in the United States. There
also is said to be a connection to a prominent computer hacker in
Britain, who was arrested in October and charged with conspiring to
commit murder and cause an explosion.

The June 2 arrests certainly underscore the possibility that
Canada , which has a long history of liberal immigration and asylum
policies, has been used by jihadists as a sanctuary for raising
funds and planning attacks. But the most intriguing aspect of the
Canada case is that it seems to encapsulate a trend that has been
slowly evolving for some time. If the allegations in the Canada 17
case are at least mostly true, it might represent the emergence of
a new operational model for jihadists -- an "al Qaeda 4.0," if you
will.

In other words, the world might be witnessing the emergence of a
grassroots jihadist network that both ... [ Read More (2.4k in body) ]

noteworthy wrote:
] David Brooks takes a crack at debunking the Dems.

Thats what he does for a living, isn't it?

] There was no disproportionate surge in the evangelical vote
] this year. Evangelicals made up the same share of the
] electorate this year as they did in 2000.

WRONG. The following story was linked from Pew's website:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/05/politics/campaign/05religion.html

"What this suggests is that the Bush coalition wasn't just evangelicals," said John C. Green, a professor of political science and director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron. "It included a much larger group of more traditional religious people, many of them outside of the evangelical tradition. What they have in common is that all of these groups tend to hold traditional views on sexual behavior."

Voters who identified themselves as white born-again or evangelical Christians made up 23 percent of voters this year. Seventy-eight percent of them voted for the president - clearly an increase over the 2000 election (but it is unclear by how much, since the question used to identify evangelicals in surveys of voters leaving the polls was asked differently four years ago, making a direct comparison impossible). Professor Green said his polling showed an increase in the evangelical vote for President Bush from 71 percent in 2000 to 76 percent this year.

] If you ask an inept question, you get a misleading result.

I agree, but problems with the data so far are not a license to fill in the blanks with your own favorite explanation.

The fact is that Kerry sucked. I said at the time of the Dem's convention that the focus on the economy was stupid and that the number one issue would be terrorism. I was right and wrong. The number one issue was "moral values" (and I'm going to continue to put that in quotes because I think its an oxymoron), but the number two issue was Terrorism. Where Kerry failed was by not focusing on Terrorism.

Having said that, I would feel much much better about this election if it seemed like the American people were saying what a few of my more educated friends are saying: "We agree with you, Tom, that that there are significant problems with the way Bush is handling things (Enemy combatants, Iraq war justification/timing/diplomacy), but we feel that Kerry sucks, and so we couldn't vote for him." I can respect that. The American people know better then I do whats best for them.

Thats not what I'm hearing. Kerry did better in the debates! This wasn't about him. This was about Terrorism and Moral Values, and I cannot escape the conclusion that the election seemed to reach to some of the ugliest aspects of this nation's character. I'm not angry because Kerry lost. I expected that. I'm angry because of what seems to have won.

I'm angry because Gay Marriage has taken center stage in the Moral Values disc... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

RE: The Values-Vote Myth