| Big Govt | Breitbart to AG Holder: Investigate ACORN or We’ll Release More Tapes Just Before 2010 Election |
0 |
| Politico | 0 | |
| Ras. Reports | 0 | |
| Patterico | L.A. Times Columnist Uncritically Quoted Star of Latest ACORN Video |
0 |
| ABC News | Major Hasan’s E-Mail: ‘I Can’t Wait to Join You’ in Afterlife |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
The 0 for 40 Congressional Democrats
Jim VandeHei and John F. Harris at The Politico write this morning about the Democratic Congress’ track record on legislation they’ve attempted to pass which would limit the president’s ability to command the war in Iraq:
As the congressional session lurches toward a close, Democrats are confronting some demoralizing arithmetic on Iraq.
The numbers tell a story of political and substantive paralysis more starkly than most members are willing to acknowledge publicly, or perhaps even to themselves.
Since taking the majority, they have forced 40 votes on bills limiting President Bush’s war policy.
Not a single one has passed both chambers, even though both are run by Democrats.
Indeed, the only war legislation passed during this Congress has been to give the president exactly what he wants, and exactly what he has had for the past five years: more money, with no limitations.
40? Wow. I’d no idea there had been so many.
And now with the increasingly positive news coming out of Iraq, the political problems only increase for the anti-war left: just how does a liberal Democrat go about putting on a public face of “supporting the troops” while at the same time downplaying their accomplishments and trying to force the Commander in Chief into a premature withdrawal, all in an effort to cater to their Nutroots base, and without looking like miserable failures when all is said and done?
That’s a quandary perhaps the Dems will let Senator Chuck Schumer try and resolve.
More: Read related thoughts via Gaius at BCB.
Related: Anti-War Voters Lash Out at Democrats They Helped Put in Office
RSS feed for comments on this post.
23 Responses to “The 0 for 40 Congressional Democrats”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
“…Democrats are confronting some demoralizing arithmetic on Iraq.”
No they aren’t. Today’s Democrat pols don’t confront anything.
The Catholic Bishops have issued a letter today on Iraq:
A Call for Bipartisan Cooperation on Responsible Transition in Iraq[PDF]
and
Questions and Answers on the War in Iraq
Well, the Dems certainly haven’t done a good job on this and it’s obvious they are playing into an political Iraq war calculus in balancing as many sides as possible to accomplish and maintain the end of being more tactically positioned for the election in 08.
That’s simply how politics is played now.
However, I’ll try, in one part, to answer your more rhetorically placed question of what they should do to further a congressionally backed withdrawal without alienating the Bluedog public mindset.
In case you were not aware last week,
“Maliki argued on al-Arabiya that Iraqi national reconciliation has not only already been achieved, it is “strong and stable and not fragile”. There is no civil war in Iraq, or even any real sectarian conflict anymore – the sectarian hatreds incited by “some” in the past have been overcome. He made clear that he does not equate national reconciliation with political progress at the national level: “I think that national reconciliation will come about not as some understand it, as a reconciliation with this political party governed by an ideology or a specific mentality.” Real national reconciliation, to Maliki, takes place at the local level, when “you can go into the street and meet with a Sunni in Shia areas or with a Shia in Sunni areas, where they live together once again.” That, he suggests, has happened. The various Sunni awakenings demonstrate reconciliation at the local level, and their support for his national government. He claims that people who fled mixed Sunni-Shia areas are now returning (or are welcome to do so), and that the people now reject sectarianism in favor of national unity and his government. True, some politicians are still demanding reconciliation, but he dismisses them as “minor political parties” whose tiresome complaints now fall on deaf ears with the people. The attempt to unseat him last year by various political factions? An attempted coup against the political process by those (regrettably mainly Sunnis) who want to return the Baath Party to its monopoly on power.”
LINK 1
If the Dems wanted advice, I’d tell them to start examining Maliki’s public statements, which suggests he’s expecting a broader sectarian conflict in the future. And that he thinks the Shiites will win it. These comments explain all his actions and inactions in the past 6 months.
Disturbingly, and obviously, if you read the statements of various Sunni militant groups, they strongly disagree with his assessment of things. Particularly now that Sunnis have American weaponry, training and near 50,000 of them are ready to be engraphed into the police and Iraqi army (all part of the “Sunni Awakening”). A engraphing Maliki has dragged his heels on to this day. They aren’t even legally permitted to walk the streets until he says so– and they, hence, wait.
A number of leading Sunni guerrillas have declared that it is their side that will be victorious if a major struggle for power ensues. What is now clear is that the leadership on both sides of the sectarian divide are gearing up for a fight once the Americans leave, and they both seem confident of victory.
I don’t know if a broader civil war is inevitable, but the surge has clearly demonstrated that throughout its run Maliki has met it with only resistance –even symbolizing his opposition in a Parliamentary one month Summer vacation. He has shown no evidence of political reconciliation and only evidence against it.
Now he argues that political reconciliation can be achieved from the bottom Sunni localities governing up. In other words, when you assembly democratically get here, then we will talk and you will probably be denied a return to the Constitution, again.
Maliki’s central government have no incentive nor interest whatsoever to invite the Sunni into a wider political process. (While at the same time the Kurds have gone out on their own and started contractual oil agreements without Parliament’s approval.) Perhaps the Sunni’s will tolerate this indefinitely, but most probably not.
All of this now comes at a time when we are now, too, beginning a draw-down:
LINK 2
Will our draw-down reflect the Brits? The Brits have left Basra (the second largest city) to a land of Sadr and Hikim militias:
LINK 3
Is Iraq verging on some kind of perfect storm? Now all Iraqi sectarian sides are armed, equipped, being trained and paid, by our occupation forces and we are downsizing. While some level of security has been achieved, not enough for a civil society that wants, and needs, as any society does, the preservation of rights and the freedom to rationally hope for progress and a better day. To attain those freedoms political reconciliation is a necessity. And Maliki and his Shia central government is not going to give it.
That’s what I would tell the Dems to put in their chorus and sing this Sunday morning on TV.
Interesting dj, and you do not think the General Patraeus is familiar with the politics of Iraq – and I suppose you think Amb. Crocker is also clueless. The facts do not support your assumptions.
Political reconciliation could certainly exit stage left – but what you advise the democrats to do is to continue to take an adversarial stance against its own country’s military progress. They can still go below 11%, you know.
It’s looking more and more like the democrats will need to generate better propaganda because the truth is Iraq is improving.
Your theory is vulnerable to one fact – Iraqis want peace. That’s why they are turning on Al qaeda. If sectarian violence was the goal, they would have joined them not thrown them off. The idea that they are biding time is possible, but a poor calculation on the weaker – Sunni side – time is certainly not on their side.
ST, I blogged on this too – and while I was linking Politico, they changed their headline from “Democrats are zero for 40″ to the less critical headline there now. I suppose there were too many republicans on the thread. LOL. Great post.
“…and you do not think the General Patraeus is familiar with the politics of Iraq – and I suppose you think Amb. Crocker is also clueless.”
There are many that are “familiar” with the politics; however, familiarity is only the first step, influencing the politics is the issue here.
Did you know Maliki has now countered US efforts to influence the political balance of Sunni-Shia security forces, while gaining a military upperhand:
LINK
Did you know not nearly 7 of the 8 political goals Bush said we would meet this month have not even gotten off the ground– but have been even impeded by the central Maliki gov.?
“Political reconciliation could certainly exit stage left – but what you advise the democrats to do is to continue to take an adversarial stance against its own country’s military progress.”
Military progress, (the surge) was an instrument, a tool, a means to an end, intended to achieve a stable political progress of 8 goals– it didn’t happen. In the SOTU Bush said national political reconciliation would happen by Nov. 07: it didn’t happen. Now Maliki last week says, it won’t happen.
Now, what’s the point of having the tools when you don’t have the politics to work on? Can one reasonably say they are crafting a means (which is limited) to an end, but the end does not exist, or, better yet, is said not to exist by the person they are intending the end to work?
“Your theory is vulnerable to one fact – Iraqis want peace. That’s why they are turning on Al qaeda. If sectarian violence was the goal, they would have joined them not thrown them off. The idea that they are biding time is possible, but a poor calculation on the weaker – Sunni side – time is certainly not on their side.”
The Sunni are patient knowing these facts: It is their country, not ours; they have now stabilized their localities, they are now more consolidated (due to the years of ethnic cleansing), unshouldered AQI, been armed, trained and employed by Americans, and in the process, given one last opportunity for Maliki to make political concessions; and finally, they know the brits have, practically speaking, left while the Americans are militarily stretched and are now down-sizing the surge in an unpopular war.
Time is on their side and not on ours. When the time is right, when Maliki says, NO! no oil rights, no constitutional concessions, no political compromise, no security integration, they will now be ready.
The problem you have not addressed is that the Sunnis are the minority. They simply do not have the numbers to do what you suggest. In fact that is why they threw in with Al Q to begin with –
not so now. If it’s a military calculation on the part of the Sunni, it is a stupid one.
That’s why blue dog democrats will not go against a successful strategy on the off chance that the Sunnis will become great fools.
“The problem you have not addressed is that the Sunnis are the minority. They simply do not have the numbers to do what you suggest.”
As i stated earlier, AQI was always a very small percentage– 3-5% of the insurgency. 20% of a population can do enough damage to cripple a country when they have the resources, and the Sunni now do.
“Stephen Biddle of the Council on Foreign Relations, who just spent 10 days in Iraq assessing the situation for Petraeus, said a crucial reason for recent security gains is the emergence of the local anti-insurgent alliances, who have struck deals with U.S. forces not just in Anbar province, where they began early this year, but now in and around Baghdad.
A key to sustaining those security gains will be the U.S. military’s ability to police the alliances, he said.
“”It’s happening on a large-scale basis throughout much of the country,” Biddle said in an interview Friday. “The problem is how do you keep them from either turning sides again or from going to war against each other.”
LINK 1
Absolutely, just 6 months ago they were killing each other by the hundreds monthly. Millions are now homeless due to ethnic cleansing, and fleeing for safety. Baghdad is now a cement walled city containing
who knows what pressures and forces ready to explode. Biddle and other know additional constraints are a required reality given past circumstances.
But it’ not just about history, there is the future to consider:
LINK 2
…
“”I am convinced now that the judicial system in Iraq is in a pathetic state,” [V.P. of Iraq, Hashemi] says, adding that the only way to push reconciliation forward and prove to Sunni Arabs once and for all that the Shiite-led government is not out to get them is to announce a sweeping amnesty to all prisoners.
“Last week, the US military released 500 prisoners from facilities it runs, which are strained to the limit and now hold nearly 26,000 detainees – most of them arrested this year as part of the drive to secure Baghdad and surrounding provinces.”
LINK 3
Can some sort of amnesty work bringing Sunni’s back to the political table? Unlikely, sadly:
LINK 4
Then there is a another problem:
“Now, Al Maliki is in danger of taking a drastically wrong decision, given the standoff between his country’s Kurds and the Turkish Government. He has been flirting with Kurdish leaders Masoud Barazani and Jalal Talbani for some time, seeking their political support in exchange for his backing for a referendum in Kirkuk to transfer its authority to Iraqi Kurdistan.
“That referendum, if implemented, would enrage Iraq’s Sunnis, its Arab nationalist Shiites, its seculars, the entire Arab neighbourhood and Turkey.
“Last week, at an Istanbul Conference over Iraq, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki urged the Iraqi government to postpone the referendum, fearing that this would give the Kurds unconditional access to the 10 billion proven oil reserves beneath Kirkuk.
“Al Maliki now faces a dilemma, however, since in as much as he needs to please the Kurds, to keep his shaky coalition alive, he does not want to say “no” to the Iranians. The referendum is supposed to take place before December 31.”
LINK 5
How much murder, neglect and hypocrisy can the Sunnis’ take? This is why I have, as well as many others, questioned whether the “stability” in pockets of Iraq is a trend or ‘under pressure’; isn’t it reasonable to assume it is under the constraints of various kinds of control, limited control, control that must give over time and conditions.
There is good reason to believe this based on Iraqi polls that this American maintained maintenance of stability is ‘under pressure’ and is not a true trend. Over 70% of Iraqis view their country as an occupation and want Americans to leave. One has to wonder how potential Sunni violence cannot be ‘under pressure’ when 20% of the population is not represented in Parliament, and Maliki has put road blocks in front of them each time regarding reconciliations.
So, now the Sunni’s are armed, trained, probably Saudi funded, hunkered in, and waiting. Each ethnicity each sitting on the one side of the Tigris river waiting for the other to do something, living in fear. All this while our finite resources are lessening while finding no end in the Iraqi political calculus.
What’s interesting, dj, is that in most, if not all, of your links there are just as many signs of positive developments as there are the negative, the latter of which seems to be quite the obsession for you. None of this, of course, has anything to do with the fact that the Democrats in Congress have not been able to do a damn they’ve wanted to this year as it relates to cutting and running from the Iraq war, and will find it increasingly difficult to do so in the coming months, presuming that the news coming out of Iraq continues to be positive – which I know you’re not hoping for, as evidenced by your first comment in this thread, which argues for how Democrats should spin the news coming out of Iraq: by only focusing on the negative, and therefore “advancing” their agenda to pull out of Iraq. IOW, same crap, different day from the left.
Also, the “link” button above the smiley faces is your friend. Please utilize it.
Sister Toldjah,
I’m just calling it as i see it.
Congrats on the Blog honorable mention.
yadda yadda.
Again with the dodgy reading comprehension, poor math skills and a general misrepresentation of what AQI is about……If you feel a need to cheerlead for the dhimmis be my guest, but according to the link YOU provided from the Jones Report, your 3-5% hopes are dashed and wrong.
The continuance of repeating lies does only one thing to ones credibility and if you wish to hang with the allies of AQ, so be it. Again, an excerpt from your link, what is it you see in the first line? The last paragraph in its entirety is as follows:
What do you really have on your mind dj, because I smell a rat?
forest hunter,
I provided a wikipedia link for the 3%-5% claim of AQI.
While i did link to the Jones report, my argument was to counter Tedintheshed’s claim that:
“However, AQ consists of almost 100% of the roadside bombings and the vast majority of civilian casualties. The violence they produce far out weighs any secterian strife produced.”
I linked to the report referring to: “(See the charts and commentary on p.34)”. Nowhere did I say, “i agree in complete entirety with the Jones Report.” I linked to it because it is a ‘military report’ and would not be as suspect as a ‘liberal’ think tank report.
Therefore, you are demanding i adhere to conclusions i never submitted.
Here are some details on the 3-5 percent figure of AQI:
(Drew Tilghman, is an Iraq correspondent for Stars and Stripes)
The Congressional Research Service (see page 31):
LINK 1
And to make it even more interesting:
Here, again, is Gen. James Jones speaking with Senator Evan Bayh:
BAYH: [T]wo percent or fewer of the adversaries that we’re facing in Iraq and that the Iraqis are facing in Iraq are foreign jihadis or AQI affiliates, [and] 98 percent or more are Iraqis fighting amongst Iraqis for the future of Iraq. Is that consistent with your understanding?
JONES: I think we would agree with that. Yes.
LINK 2
Or not…read the excerpt from your own link again for the first time:
Then you add:
and go on to whine about:
Both ways might work for the girls you go with but us unwashed and uneducated workin’ folk smell a rat again.
BTW, I demanded nothing. In fact I requested links which you provided that indicate a certain depth of clueless narrative, both unsupported by facts and provided by you. Nice try, but the next time you want to bring your sarcastic crap along, learn how to use the capital thingy for *I* and if you want to coach the enemy do so somewhere else.
Don’t get offended at my brusk verbiage. Get offended when rats are playing with your life under the guise of being spice in the soup. Diversity?
dj begins by letting us know exactly what the priorities are:
Well, thanks for admitting that to you on the left, politics is more important than success in Iraq. Some Democrats have already told us how concerned they are that good news (for the US, I mean) in Iraq would hurt their election chances. And now, when the Democrats have the choice between financing our armed forces and playing politics, you find nothing wrong with the fact that they’ve chosen the latter course. If there was anyone who still harbored any doubts about the leftist mindset, your indfifference to the welfare of the troops should be evidence enough.
Then there’s this:
Uh huh. And Baghdad Bob bragged about how the Saddam’s army was going to smash the US forces. And bin Laden crows about how he’s going to humiliate and defeat the US (with the help of our left wing, of course). What you’re missing is that public boasting is not an uncommon thing in the middle east, even when there’s nothing whatsoever to back it up. But you on the left have always seized on any ominous statements to declare pre-emptive defeat…I can still remember your predictions of tens of thousands of body bags coming back – in Gulf War I. Bad for the US = good for you. OK, got it.
Oh, by the way, you’re really damaging what credibility you have left when the main links you can come up with are to (1) a web “encyclopedia” which is notoriously easy to edit for nefarious purposes, (2) a far-left blogger (Tim Dunlop), and (3) an adjunct of the Clinton presidential campaign (ThinkProgress). Hardly authoritative. If you want to present these as simply opinions, fine…but don’t think you can use their views as solid facts here and not be called on it. That’s disingenuous, to be polite.
This is an outstanding piece on Iraq’s dilemma:
“Senior military commanders here now portray the intransigence of Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government as the key threat facing the U.S. effort in Iraq, rather than al-Qaeda terrorists, Sunni insurgents or Iranian-backed militias.
“In more than a dozen interviews, U.S. military officials expressed growing concern over the Iraqi government’s failure to capitalize on sharp declines in attacks against U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians. A window of opportunity has opened for the government to reach out to its former foes, said Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the commander of day-to-day U.S. military operations in Iraq, but “it’s unclear how long that window is going to be open.”
“The lack of political progress calls into question the core rationale behind the troop buildup President Bush announced in January, which was premised on the notion that improved security would create space for Iraqis to arrive at new power-sharing arrangements. And what if there is no such breakthrough by next summer? “If that doesn’t happen,” Odierno said, “we’re going to have to review our strategy.”
….
“Indeed, all the U.S. military officials interviewed said their most pressing concern is that Sunnis will sour if the Iraqi government doesn’t begin to reciprocate their peace overtures. “The Sunnis have shown great patience,” said Campbell. “You don’t want the Sunnis that are working with you . . . to go back to the dark side.”
“The Army officer who requested anonymity said that if the Iraqi government doesn’t reach out, then for former Sunni insurgents “it’s game on — they’re back to attacking again.”
“The year-long progress in fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq could carry a downside. Maj. Mark Brady, who works on reconciliation issues, noted that a Sunni leader told him: “As soon as we finish with al-Qaeda, we start with the Shiite extremists.” Talk like that is sharply discouraged, Brady noted as he walked across the dusty ground of Camp Liberty, on the western fringes of Baghdad.”
LINK
The officers interviewed in the story are agonizing over whether provincial elections will truly help bridge the huge political divide.
I can understand why.
Without a meaningful national political bargain at the center of the Sunni-Shia unrest, they are worried about a real future sectarian conflict.
So these officers recognize the problem: there is now a “window of opportunity”, but capitalizing on it with a power sharing arrangement could trigger an intensely hostile Shia reaction, however, not capitalizing on it could trigger a hostile Sunni reaction.
Perhaps this may help explain that,
“despite repeat efforts at the highest levels and Pentagon promises, Congress has been unable to get a current copy of the [Joint Campaign [P]lan.” The issue has “moved up the Congressional chain of command” to Speaker Pelosi, “who has asked President Bush for the document several months ago in a White House meeting,” and has “since ‘repeatedly’ requested a copy, her aide said, but has not yet received one.”
-Roll Call
dj is also an excellent example of how the left likes to change the subject when the argument isn’t going their way. The topic is about the dems incompetence and inability to pass any of the legislation that they promised they would, even though they control both houses.
The topic is not on the political situation in Iraq. Everyone knows the difficulty that we face in the political aspect of Iraq, that’s not news.
I just find it interesting that the dems were crowing about “Casualties! Casualties!” and now that they violence is slowly subsiding they are changing their tune to “Politics! Politics!”. They do not want to see Iraq succeed, period. People like dj are an excellent example. The violence is going down, yet you continue focusing on the negative.
dj wants instant gratification:
Did it occur to you that 13 years passed between the Declaration of Independence and the ratification of the US Constitution? And that was with a people who knew all about voting, and liberty, and representative government. Yet you expect the Iraqis, who have no experience in any of those areas, to patch up 1000-year old differences and become a model state in a matter of months. You give the Iraqis less time to learn self-government than John Kerry’s taken to release his service records.
Besides that, NC Cop’s right – the discussion here was on the failure of Team Pelosi to torpedo the war effort completely, and you’ve hijacked it into your standard all-is-lost-let’s-quit-now meme. You might want to take off the blinders sometime and think about how to achieve success, not guarantee defeat.
ST asked the derogatory question: “just how does a liberal Democrat go about putting on a public face of “supporting the troops” while at the same time downplaying their accomplishments and trying to force the Commander in Chief into a premature withdrawal, all in an effort to cater to their Nutroots base, and without looking like miserable failures when all is said and done?”
Above I said I would try to answer it in part. Here is another part:
“Attacks against British and Iraqi forces have plunged by 90 percent in southern Iraq since London withdrew its troops from the main city of Basra, the commander of British forces there said Thursday.
“The presence of British forces in downtown Basra, Iraq’s second-largest city, was the single largest instigator of violence, Maj. Gen. Graham Binns told reporters Thursday on a visit to Baghdad’s Green Zone.
“”We thought, ‘If 90 percent of the violence is directed at us, what would happen if we stepped back?’” Binns said.”
I believe the British pullout from Basra, and the subsequent violence dropping as a result of that pullout, will change the current debate on Iraq. Hopefully Democrats will start imposing this new logic on the current state of affairs in Iraq.
“The presence of British forces in downtown Basra, Iraq’s second-largest city, was the single largest instigator of violence, Maj. Gen. Graham Binns told reporters Thursday on a visit to Baghdad’s Green Zone.
“”We thought, ‘If 90 percent of the violence is directed at us, what would happen if we stepped back?’” Binns said.”
According to the Administration American troops are needed to be present in large numbers in Iraq because the absence of U.S. forces would lead to a rapid explosion of violence. However, Basra is a counter example to their case. their logic.
The facts of the Basra story to could displace the Administrations foreign policy logic with this new story in very simple terms:
5,000 soldiers leave
violence drops 90%
As this good news of this the Brits story gets media traction the ground of the debate I believe will shift and Democrats will have a stronger case for withdrawal.
I’ll give you this, dj: at least you’re getting closer to admitting you want a unilateral retreat from Iraq instead of trying to camouflage your plans by bemoaning the inevitability of sectarian violence.
This is the heart of your argument:
And that’s a classical post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.
First, it assumes that the drawdown of UK forces caused the violence to subside, but you have no evidence to support that. From this, I take it we are supposed to conclude that if we simply cut and run from Iraq now, all the violence will cease forthwith? Make up your mind…a few days ago you were preaching that an explosion of violence is unavoidable whenever we leave, so we might as well leave now. Has Hillary been giving you lessons on how to take a position?
Second, it ignores the lessons of the surge in Anbar province followed by the steep decline in terrorist activity…a decline for which there is a confirmed cause-and-effect relation, as testified by the shiekhs themselves who have switched sides and joined the coalition forces.
I’d urge you to go back and look at this picture one more time. That is a symbol of the progress that can be made by staying and working with Iraqis of good will. The fact that you are quite content to leave these people to be slaughtered and are unconcerned with the irreparable damage it will do to the Middle East and the world speaks volumes about the so-called “progressive” philosophy.
GWR,
The fallacy works both ways. It works for the ’surge’ and perhaps the Brit withdrawal; both are prone to the false cause fallacy. However, the surge is more prone to it. Baghdad is -actually was- 50-50 Shia-Sunnia based, while Anbar was Sunni. Was the ‘Awakening borne of the surge,? or were they sick of AQI,? or did they realize the Shia were winning the conflict?, or perhaps after the surge began terrorists simply bid-up the violence anticipating a lower probability of success once the full troops were in place,? or maybe the decline in violence is “natural”, its spike in violence succeeded in killing off the sizable portions of Shias from particular areas in a particular city (Baghdad), province (Anbar) town? Of course it is. (As a matter of fact, as Biddle himself explains further below, the surge “got lucky”.)
Basra is Shia. It not that “it ignores the lessons of the surge in Anbar province”, it’s that Basra has no significant relationship to the Anbar problem: the ‘Sunni Awakening’ and AQI or for that matter the surge; it is more or less free of the car bombs and violence between Shias and Sunni Arabs raging in central Iraq. Basra, therefore, it is another animal and the surge’s “lessons” cannot be demonstrated to apply in Basra.
The point of note, therefore, is the decline in violence in Basra is not related to the decline in violence in central Iraq.
Further, did the surge, as you argued, have a “confirmed cause-and-effect relation” with the “steep decline in terrorist activity”?
Biddle dis-confirmed as much in this interview:
Gwertzman: Well what do you attribute this whole change on the ground to? Is this due to what is called “the surge” or good diplomacy by the U.S. military, or just luck?
Biddle: All of those things have some role but I would put “luck” as probably the biggest.
G: You mean the timing just happens to coincide with the Sunnis getting fed up with al-Qaeda?
B: Well, that’s a big part of it. I think there are about three or four major reasons for this. One of the principal factors is that the Sunnis lost the battle of Baghdad and understand that they lost it. Interestingly, most people look back at the Samara mosque bombing back in February 2006 and the subsequent sectarian violence as a great disaster. But one of the ironic features of that is that sectarian violence essentially resulted in the Sunnis getting kicked out of the capital city. They lost the fighting with the Jaish al Mahdi in the city of Baghdad and came to recognize that they were not going to win if this came to an all-out war with the United States gone from Iraq. [end]
The surge was a participant player in a perfect storm’ of events or causalities.
Before you throw me on Humes’ cutting board for “assuming that the drawdown of UK forces caused the violence to subside…” acknowledge it’s not my thesis, but General Binns.
Additionally, nowhere does the General state it was the only cause, he states it is the “single largest” cause. Therefore, he acknowledges other causalities (unlike our president). I quoted the General’s statement twice to press this point (and others points) and you still failed to see it.
Finally, therefore, Gen. Binns sidesteps the fallacy of “after this, therefore because of this.” Further, my statement, that you quoted above, makes no mention of excluding other causes, it is in harmony with the Generals’ statement that their presence was the “single largest instigator of violence”, according to their research.
———
GWR also said,
“…a few days ago you were preaching that an explosion of violence is unavoidable whenever we leave, so we might as well leave now. Has Hillary been giving you lessons on how to take a position?”
Yes, I still believe our occupation in Iraq puts areas like Baghdad, those areas with a Sunni-Shia mix, under pressure, artificially created by a US occupation, and therefore, in an illusionary trend in decreasing violence.
It is probable that there will be a further conflict or civil war if national political reconciliation is not realized now that the Sunni’s are willing to negotiate; and it is also probable, as I have stated, there will be a civil war if there is national political reconciliation. That’s the dilemma here as I stated it above: “The officers interviewed in the story are agonizing over, whether provincial elections will truly help bridge the huge political divide.”
As i see it, this time, thankfully, our present military heads see the dire concern. It’s a near catch-22 and without some unlimited resources package capable of spanning 10-20 years of time the social-sectarian physics will probably overcome the opposing pressure, ie, our occupation.
Now, note, nowhere above did I state that if we completely withdrawal violence will drop as it did in Basra. I don’t know if it will drop; however, since polls indicate they significantly don’t want us there it may. Most likely the violence would resurface in any case, to an unknown degree, spreading and falling over time depending on numerous variables.
Again, my intention if you recall was to answer ST’s question regarding how politically “to put on a public face” concerning the Iraq question. Politics is different from understanding a war. (You know this. Bush deceived the public on Iraq’s progress for two years until the Iraq Study Group put him on the hot seat.)
So, for Dems, Basra should be part of their answer. Even if Basra is a different animal, unlike Baghdad, central Iraq, it should be part of their answer. Why?
1. It illustrates so clearly how even within the Shia there is a thugish power grab going on and it’s not about just a Sunni-Shia divide; therefore, even if there was an accord in Shia-Sunni national reconciliation, it were a winning ticket, it’s not an Iraqi silver bullet: there’s the Kurd-Turk problem to the north and the Shia militia problem in south. It’s a wack-a-mole on a grander scale.
2. It suggests, also, hope in practical and living terms that they want to govern themselves; they don’t want us there, even in central Iraq, and our resulting downsizing could result in a decline in violence (for an unknown time).
3. It finally forces the Administration to counter the claim that large numbers of troops are still needed when there is now a drop in violence in Baghdad and Basra. While the reasons are generally unrelated regarding those drops in violence, the public will acknowledge reasonably, the ill-necessity for the superfluous large troop force.
4. Finally, in general, it puts the Administration on the defensive for staying arguing that microscopic elements in progress constitute a trend:
Gen. Raymond Odierno:
“Iraqi civilian deaths have also declined in recent months. This has a great deal to do with the overall drop in violence but also has a lot to do with Iraqis coming together as a nation and not dividing along ethnic and sectarian lines. […]
“With the civilian populace feeling more secure and cooperating with both Iraqi security forces and coalition forces, this has been able to keep the enemy off balance and our casualty trends began to decline. It is a trend that we are absolutely committed to continuing.”
To say it’s a trend one must have a general unity of accord with it’s political factions, a willing inner working of cooperation in tasking, a desire of harmony within the whole participating together for a mutual political goal; however, this is not the case at all– there has been no political evidence of this in the past 4 years, and the public needs to understand this.
Does the public want to wait 15-20 years at 200 billion a year? Even if “13 years passed between the Declaration of Independence and the ratification of the US Constitution” one part of our founding fathers congress never persecuted, raped, killed and bombed there the other part; they also didn’t had refuse to share the wealth, natural resources, and power; they didn’t go to civil war regarding their religion, either.
The numerous multiple parties participating in this “trend” are there for their own opportune reasons; and hence there is no trend; discord exists within this leviathan and without the present containment of occupation, holding the “trend” together, under pressure, there is, realistically speaking, no ‘trend’. Is the establishment of prisons (ie. a walled -up and trooped-up Baghdad), a indication that society is trending towards progress,? or, is it the contorted efforts at containing a confluent chaos of violence?
Couple that with our limited, fatigued resources in Iraq, that our own commanders are voicing, plus the public distaste for the war, then the Democrats have a good argument for starting some kind of withdrawal proceedings “without looking like miserable failures when all is said and done.” [-ST]
Well wouldn’t it stand to reason that if there are no British forces to attack in Basra, attacks against British forces in Basra would go down? That seems rather logical.
Here you contradict yourself. You say that Basra is not representative of the types of problem the entire country is having, yet you seem to indicate that it “counters their case”. It does nothing of the sort.
As you’ve already noted, Basra is predominately Shia so they do not face the same challenges as Baghdad does. I’ve also noticed that you didn’t give any credit to all the extra time that our military has had to train and prepare the Iraqis for the British to pull out. Had the dems had their way they would have abandoned Iraq back in 2004 when John Kerry was screaming for withdrawal during the election. Let’s not disregard that little gem.
Just out of curiosity, if Basra would have exploded into violence after the British pullout, would you have advocated sending troops back in, or, more likely, would you have used it as evidence of a “failed mission” and further proof that we should leave. It seems that with your argument, either way, you get to declare you are right.
So you chalk it up as mere coincidence that as soon as the surge was in place and given time to work, no thanks to the dems, violence has decresed in Baghdad. As you have already said Basra is different than Baghdad in that Baghdad had more of the sectarian violence than Basra did, yet after the surge is given time to work, violence is declining.
Thousands of people are returning to Baghdad to their homes and your only response is “it’s just coincidence.”
The bottom line is the dems would have pulled out years ago if they had their way. The extra time that our troops have had to train the Iraqi security forces is invaluable, yet it doesn’t seem to get much attention from you. All of these positive things that are happening now would never have happened 3 years ago had we left when the dems wanted too.
Now that things are beginning to turn around, you are claiming that it’s time to leave?
NC Cop:
“Well wouldn’t it stand to reason that if there are no British forces to attack in Basra, attacks against British forces in Basra would go down? That seems rather logical.”
First, you ignored the full quote: “Attacks against both British forces and Iraqi forces”.
And second, it does not stand to reason that when forces withdrawal they should encounter less resistance. In matters of war withdrawal is considered one of the more dangerous of events due to one’s goal having changed and the enemy sensing a vulnerability; it’s always very dangerous as you objectives are now one of a defensive nature:
LINK
Withdrawals take months and years depending on numerous conditions. The British withdrawal started in early March and finally in Oct. they secured themselves in the Basra airport.
NC Cop says:
“Here you contradict yourself. You say that Basra is not representative of the types of problem the entire country is having, yet you seem to indicate that it “counters their case”. It does nothing of the sort.”
I don’t contradict myself. Basra was involved (still is) in a sectarian conflict–just as Baghdad is, but with different players– with Hakim and Sadr’s forces going at each other, plus a multitude of other players, each jockeying for political advantage, not to mention along with Iran and religious fanatics in with the mix. In terms of establishing an orderly government in Basra, and a decent life for its people, the occupation has been a failure. Militias rule the roost, though there is a fragile balance of power among rival Shia units, the British became sitting ducks for insurgent attacks, with 90 per cent of the violence here directed at them and anyone who worked with them.
Who knows how dangerous it was compared to Baghdad?, it may have been worse since the British forces were no where near the size of the Americans. The Brits complained they were fed poor support and intel on Basra, being overwhelmed. I guess the same happened in Baghdad last Winter. But both places are dangerous places and Basra can “be representative” in the sense that any occupying force is a catalyst to violence.
Why hasn’t anyone of you acknowledged this fact yet?:
Every Iraqi poll taken in the last year indicates they want us to leave, and a majority see no problem with attacking us. Don’t this mean anything to you? “That seems rather logical” to me.
NC Cop:
“So you chalk it up as mere coincidence that as soon as the surge was in place and given time to work, no thanks to the dems, violence has decresed in Baghdad.”
That was Gen. Petraeus’ advisor, Biddle that said that; I simply tend to agree it was mere coincidence (based primarily on the Sunnis’ having their clocks cleaned by the Shia — and we started throwing money and arms at the Sunni (Biddle forgot that part)).
NC Cop:
“Now that things are beginning to turn around, you are claiming that it’s time to leave?”
“Turning around” is actually a state where each side has decided they will not give an inch on power-sharing, natural resources, and equal constutional rights and is preparing itself for war, while the Brits have wisely said, let’s use this window of opportunity to get out of here before they start shooting again due to the Americans now having armed everyone and given them cash.
There is no con
No sir, you said, and I quote:
You quoted a British commander speaking about the absence of BRITISH troops in the second largest city. He himself said if 90% of the violence is directed at BRITISH troops what would happen if they stepped back.
Indeed, but being primarily Shia the sectarian violence has been nowhere near the levels in other parts of the country. It’s like comparing the crime rates of Mayberry and Detroit and then trying to use the exact same methods to solve them. It doesn’t work.
It’s the exact same reason why there has not been very much sectarian conflict in northern Iraq where the Kurds are. I noticed you didn’t have anything to say about that. The reason they haven’t had as many problems with sectarian violence is because it is primarily KURD.
Baghdad, as you noted, is split Shia and Sunni and it’s why there has been the most sectarian violence, it’s going to require different methods to solve the problems.
Acknowledged what? That Iraq is not going to be easy to reconcile? Thanks for the news flash, we are quite aware of it.
I noticed you did not address any of my statements about giving the Iraqi security forces enough time to train and equip. As I said before if it were up to the dems they would have abandoned Iraq in 2004. Any comment on that?
Again, thanks for the news flash. However, up until now, all I can recall is the dems screaming about the casualty rate. Now that the casualty rate is down, people like you want to throw those results away and declare that we are STILL losing because the Iraqis have not reconciled as fast as we would like.
As I said before, to people like you, it doesn’t matter what happens in Iraq. If political reconciliation began occurring tomorrow you would move onto something else in order for you to declare defeat.
You have excellent links and are very good at research. You do, however, seem to have a inability to comprehend or grasp what is really going on in Iraq and the nation in general.
I forgot to address this little gem. Imagine, dj, that you live in a country like Iraq. Any evidence of any kind of cooperation or collaboration with the Americans will get you or your family killed.
Now imagine that someone calls you on the phone, or comes to your door and asks you what you think of the Americans. What would you say? Would you say what you felt or what you think might keep you and your family alive. There’s no 911 system to call for help or for an ambulance, what do you think these people are going to do?
Those polls are a crock.
I almost forgot to ask something else. In your summation of Iraq you seem to be saying that sectarian violence would go down if the U.S. and coalition forces leave. Can you explain why these terrorists would kill other Iraqi citizens because of the presence of American forces?