Obama announces U.S. combat in Iraq to end by Aug 31, 2010

Promise kept. < :-)

Aug 31 isnt that when all the coupons expire as well.

To bad we didnt have a coupon for the price of life we lost chasing a pipe dream. Bring them all home safe.

adaydream: "Promise kept. < :-)"

Imagine that, eh? Finally a president who keeps what he promises. Drastic change from the last eight years. :)

"tens of thousands of U.S. personnel will remain behind ( after 2010 )"

What! But the Iraqis want ALL foreign troops, especially U.S. troops, out! How are we going to have free healthcare if we have to pay for these tens of thousands who remain behind in Iraq?

"Some of Obama's fellow Democrats seemed cooler in response. Not all were pleased with leaving the bulk of troops in place this year"

Exactly, exactly!

This timetable was approved by Bush and the Iraqis: Combat troops out by 2010; all troops out by 2011. It's in the forces agreement between the two countries and part of Iraqi law.

Obama's only announcing something that was already planned while he was busy running for president.

Everybody will be marking this one down on their calendar. The good guys and the bad guys. Reminds me of "Vietnamization" of another conflict years ago. What is it with the US? They go into a country and effect a "regime change" based on dubious evidence (lies) and then they scuttle off with the job only half done. Gutless or what? It seems that over the last couple of generations, the US has lost the will to fight. I blame it on the freedom of the press. There is nothing like blood and gore on the evening news to get people out in the streets. Don't get wrong, I am all in favor of military action where it is warranted, but I don't like this "cut and run" philosophy. Same in Vietnam, same in Somalia. To those on the American (chickenhawk) right (and also the tree huggers on the American left), I would remind you that war is a dirty business. It is not just about dropping bombs and napalm on your enemy from 10 miles up and then nipping back to the Officer Club (an American microcism) for gin and tonics. It is also not about deceiving yourself into believing that you are inpervious to attack (how dare the enemy actually kill us). Rather, war is the basest of human instincts. It is about bringing arms to bear and killing your enemy sometimes in the most personal of ways (having somebody wrythe on the end of your bayonet). It is also about (unfortunately) accepting that your own troops are going to die. It just peaves me off that America seems to fit to dictate terms to other people (Iraq, whoever), and then heads for the door just because American KIAs is an unpopular topic at home.

Speaking of keeping promises and getting the job done.

As a nation, we have had our share of debates about the war in Iraq. It has, at times, divided us as a people. To this very day, there are some Americans who want to stay in Iraq longer, and some who want to leave faster. But there should be no disagreement on what the men and women of our military have achieved.

And so I want to be very clear: We sent our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Hussein’s regime – and you got the job done. We kept our troops in Iraq to help establish a sovereign government – and you got the job done. And we will leave the Iraqi people with a hard-earned opportunity to live a better life – that is your achievement; that is the prospect that you have made possible.

Mr. President were just doing the mission that is assigned to us by the Commander and Chief. I believe you have a little different mission for us then the one were are currently doing in Afghanistan now?

Give us the right tools, enough manpower and no worries Mr.President we will get the job done there also.

Text of his speech........... It's very good, no complaints from this Iraqi war vet (Both of them Desert Storm and the current GWOT).

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/us/politics/27obama-text.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

hah! Obama only withdrawing two thirds of the troops is further proof that Obama can neither tell the truth nor is a man of his word. His campaign promise was reckless to begin with and was only used to outmaneuver Hillary. It catered to the dailykossacks and all those blinded with George Bush hatred. In the end it follows George Bushes timeline. Talk is cheap and Obamas words are the cheapest. Pulling out of Iraq is what carried him through the primaries, pulling out of Iraq is what got him elected president. This is the position he took, this was his campaign promise, this is why the dailykos supported him, this is the change people thought they could believe in. Obama is a bold face liar.

I would tend to agree with VOR in that this is a promise not met. It also seems to be contrary to the wished of most Americans. I am left to wonder if the generals are calling the shots and not the commander in chief. Has a coup occurred?

“By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.”

... so if someone attacks that week, the US will just give up the fight on the 31st? hey, that is great news to know!

hereandthere - The U.S. is handing over 100% responsibility for combat over to the Iraqis on the 31st. The way things are going, it looks like it will be successful. But if Iraq should fall apart during the coming year, President Obama will be in a real pickle - he could either keep his promise and have another disaster in Iraq, or he could break his promise. It's hard to know what he would do. That's one thing about his predecessor - with Bush, agree or disagree with him, you knew where he stood. With President Obama... well, like I said, it's looking like he'll be able to keep his promise.

sailwind: "We sent our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Hussein’s regime – and you got the job done."

Not quite. The troops were sent in to get rid of the threat of WMDs. When that turned out to be a lie, the government changed its rhetoric to the reason that Saddam had ties to AQ. When that also turned out to be VERY far from the truth (GWB had more ties to Bin Laden than Saddam, by FAR!), it THEN became the reason that they had to 'rid the world of an evil dictator'.

Get it straight, sailwind, that was something like reason number three. And if that were the sole reason, why Iraq? Why not other dictators? Ah, the question you guys can NEVER answer without admitting the reasons for going in were lies!

sarge: "...he could either keep his promise and have another disaster in Iraq..."

The disaster IS Iraq.

Admittedly, Obama IS in a real pickle with Iraq, but the troops have to get out as soon as they can. Staying beyond the set deadline will really accomplish nothing.

sailwind: sorry... didn't notice right away that what you posted was from a speech. I thought it was your opinion. It's still factually incorrect, but anyway.

It is also well worded, I might add, to the credit of the speaker.

sarge："That's one thing about his predecessor - with Bush, agree or disagree with him, you knew where he stood. With President Obama... well, like I said, it's looking like he'll be able to keep his promise."

Not true... bush was the biggest flip-flopper in the history of US presidents. Remember when he said Bin Laden was not a concern, then turned around the next day and addressed the seething criticism by saying OBL was a concern? He admitted Iraq was a mistake and was his biggest regret, then the next day changed his tune to say it was the right course.

Anyway, nice try, but no cigar.

Obama's plan is smart, but it is not what he claimed.

Pulling all US troops out could lead to another meltdown.

Leaving them all there would only plunge America even deeper into debt.

Obama has chosen a middle road between the two.

Very, very smart.

Let's hope he will gradually pull more and more troops out as time goes by.

VOR - "This is the position he took, this was his campaign promise, this is why the dailykos supported him, this is the change people thought they could believe in. Obama is a bold face liar."

VOR, you're not seriously thinking we are going to believe that you actually believed a politician's election promises, ar you? :-)

Talk about setting yourself up to be disappointed.

No surprises there... :-)

hehe look at the left making fools of themselves. They are actually now supporting a war they claim is illegal.l Only a few months ago they were counting on Obama to keep his word of pulling the troops out of Iraq but now that he is leaving a significant force behind, it is now somehow "very, very smart". Little do they know, this is pretty much the strategy and timeline already established by the Bush administration. Not quite the change many folks that voted for Obama believed in.

VOR, I realize how tough it must be for you to realize that your posts and your viewpoint are now irrelevant. You voted for the fringe Right that is now the minority and now your vote and opinion do not count.

VOR, you know you are being unrealistic by expecting a complete pullout. You know that violence in Iraq could escalate, so your attempt to pretend otherwise is weak, at best.

I sincerely hope Obama draws down U.S. forces ASAP and gets America the heck out of Iraq, a country that GWB invaded based on a pack of lies that people who really should have known better believed hook, line and sinker.

It is going to cost billions more to withdraw U.S. forces, and military planners are saying it will take AT LEAST 2 years to ship all the hardware back to the States.

Yes, I believe totally this war has been a complete and utter balls up that, thanks to the support of people like yourself, Sarge, etc. has cost the U.S. enormous sums, for no significant return.

Yes, Iraqis have suffered immensely, and are now worse off than they were under a dictator (- can you believe it!).

However, yes, the withdrawl needs to be responsible. That is what President Obama is pushing.

sailwind: sorry... didn't notice right away that what you posted was from a speech. I thought it was your opinion. It's still factually incorrect, but anyway.

It is also well worded, I might add, to the credit of the speaker.

Ummm.....Now it's just factually incorrect because the speaker who said it just happened to be Obama??????

Where's the slams now? I'll help you here with the retort you would have said if Bush had said that instead of Obama.

Get it straight, OBAMA, that was something like reason number three. And if that were the sole reason, why Iraq? Why not other dictators? Ah, the question you guys can NEVER answer without admitting the reasons for going in were lies!

Crow is mighty tasty when you cook it long enough.

sailwind - Good one.

Hi everybody! I just want to point to this in the article, as just about EVERYONE does not seem to get it:

In any case, all U.S. troops must be out of Iraq by Dec 31, 2011.

I missed this myself in the other thread. But until this bit is absorbed, further discussion like the above is pointless.

I knew Obama was lying when he gave the left wing of the Democratic party the impression that he would pull the troops out of Iraq. I knew perfectly well when he said it that would be a disaster and when he said it, he knew it too. Thats not what I am disputing. I am calling Obama out for lying to the very people who propelled him to the presidency. His core voters. The ones that chose him over Hillary simply because of his stance against the war and his false promise to end US involvement as soon as he became president. Its a real hoot now watching you guys making excuses for O.B.A.M.A when he is following the exact same script of the Bush administration.

likeitis - We know about the Dec. 31, 2011 deadline. The thing is, the president pledged to have all the troops out by June, 2010 ( 16 months after he takes office ).

The Anti Obama force is up to speed

The deployment cycles won't be significantly changing. Units will be redeployed to Afghanistan, instead of Iraq. The units remaining in Iraq will have the same SASO missions as they do now. The media just won't be called them "combat missions." That's change you can believe in. ;)

timorborder: What is it with the US? They go into a country and effect a "regime change" based on dubious evidence (lies) and then they scuttle off with the job only half done. Gutless or what?

No. Foolish. Foolish for taking on tasks that are not their business and cannot really be done. It takes two to tango, and if the Iraqis are not dancing the tango very well by now, they never will. It was the same in Vietnam. An impossible task by definition. You cannot hand people a successful government. They have to do it themselves. All you can do is make the atmosphere, and the U.S. did that. The trouble is, they should have known better.

The results with Iraq are better than with Vietnam. But Vietnam would probably have been much better off without our involvement in their affairs and been where they are today ten years ago, at least. And they are not such a problem, now are they?

It seems that over the last couple of generations, the US has lost the will to fight.

How so? We have been in more wars than in the last couple generations than anyone else I can think of. And only one of those wars were wars of defense (and even that one is debatable).

Don't get wrong, I am all in favor of military action where it is warranted,

Obviously, you are in favor of military action. It is the caveat "where it is warranted" where you seem to go off the rails.

but I don't like this "cut and run" philosophy.

Giving up the impossible is not "cut and run". Sticking around trying to do the impossible is just as foolish as getting yourself involved in the first place.

Again, all America could do was set the atmosphere. We did that. We did that for longer than we intended. We did that for more blood and treasure than we intended and certainly more than we could afford. If the job is not done by 2011, it never will be done. Sticking around would not be courage. It would be stupidity. Just as stupid as starting it.

No matter the results, we bit off more than we could chew. The victory is as pyrrhic as starting it was ignorant.

Sarge: We know about the Dec. 31, 2011 deadline. The thing is, the president pledged to have all the troops out by June, 2010 ( 16 months after he takes office ).

Its not what the article says. The article says:

Obama was moving to fulfill in large measure the defining promise of his presidential campaign — to end combat operations within 16 months of taking office. He’s doing it in 19 months instead.

This is a moving of the goal post I can live with. 1) because its only 3 months and 2) its his first offense.

But if you can provide something that contradicts the article, knock yourself out.

VOR: Pulling out of Iraq is what carried him through the primaries, pulling out of Iraq is what got him elected president.

Actually, it was talk of keeping troops in Iraq that sunk McCain.

Now, let me ask you this: Is Obama speaking of keeping troops in Iraq, or pulling them out? And kindly note that we have gotten somewhat used to changing deadlines over the last few years.

Well, this ANOTHER announcement from Obama that demonstrates his utter brilliance, in contrast to bush, who was the worst president ever, from the get-go.We all know that President Obama inherited a war based on lies but he has struck the perfect balance.Kudos to him.Anyways, my friends, I'm saddened to say Iraq will undoubtedly go back to being a mess, and NO!, that DOESN'T mean I supported Saddam Hussein even though we ALL know Iraq was better off under him.Muslims in Iraq (and the 3 BILLION around the world, that certain people here, who know who they are, want exterminated)are peaceful.The violence was resistance to bush and his cronies and to blackwater.

likeitis:We have been in more wars than in the last couple generations than anyone else I can think of.

Bingo! That was very well worded, amigo.Your posts always comfort me, and they help with the loneliness too.

Well, anyway, the bottom line is Obama is fixing what bush destroyed,and it fills everyone everywhere with hope.

likeitis,

In 2007 President (then candidate) said: "My plan for ending the war would turn the page in Iraq by removing our combat troops from Iraq's civil war"

Disregarding the improper usage of the term "civil war" (AQ operatives are usually non-Iraqi), just what are "combat troops?" An MP brigade is as heavily armed (arguably more so) than an infantry brigade. Less than half of all units in Iraq are "combat brigades." In 2008, the mission transitioned from war-fighting to peacekeeping. Reflecting this, most current missions are SASO, not combat operations. In short, nothing is really going to change beyond the force commitment levels that were already negotiated.

Politicians said what they believed people want to hear. Anti-war protesters believed what they wanted to believe.

Likeitis: My reference to recent generations is with regard to the whinning that goes on when casaulties are taken. If the US had worried to the same extent about every dead GI back in World War 2 or Korea, where would the world be today? War is war, shxt happens, and sometimes Johnnie does not "come marching home." He (or bits of him) comes home in a box. Trust me, it is no fun seeing people serving under you get killed and maimed, but if you are not willing to take the hits then you shouldn't be there in the first place.

Secondly, I disagree that sticking around is just as foolish as getting involved in the first place. Getting involved in Iraq in the first place was dumb. All the lies, all the deceit, blah, blah, blah. At the same time, telegraphing your intentions for 2 or 3 years down the track is even dumber. What do you think is going to happen? Iraq is not a strong democracy and the puppets the US has installed have about as much legitimacy as the goons that used to run South Vietnam. Who are the US friendly leaders in Iraq anyway? A bunch of returned exiles who could not hack it under Saddam and have about as much street cred as GW Bush does in terms of his military service (or lack there of). Considering this, once the US leaves Iraq, there is a good chance that things will distablize either as a result of factional tensions or external influence (Iran).

OldGeezer: First off, you seem to be completely unaware of the level of al-Quaida involvement in Iraq. It was, is, and always has been minimal. The situation in Iraq that our troops have been trying to quell for most of their time there was a civil war, ie, it was as much Iraqi on Iraqi as anything.

just what are "combat troops?"

That is a damn good question sir. But I think it is suffient to say that it is something short of "all" troops, clearly.

In short, nothing is really going to change beyond the force commitment levels that were already negotiated.

I can't argue with that. Obama is dressing it up in the prettier package. I don't care so long as he does what he says. And I am willing to give him some wiggle room on that and not parse his words....for now.

I am not, however, giving him credit for what was negotiated between the Bush admin and the Iraqi government. (I am not even giving that to Bush because it was much, much, much too late.) But I am giving Obama credit for saying the right words. That is an important thing to do as president. I will also give him credit for keeping this specific promise (as opposed to a campaign promise) if and when he does that.

Have to quibble a little about the articles use of a quote from his speech.

“We have forged hard-earned progress, we are leaving Iraq to its people, and we have begun the work of ending this war,” he said.

It was taken a bit out of context it's part of a sentence not an entire sentence itself. I think it's important to understand the entire paragraph of what he said to fully understand the quote.

Each American who has served in Iraq has their own story. Each of you has your own story. And that story is now a part of the history of the United States of America – a nation that exists only because free men and women have bled for it from the beaches of Normandy to the deserts of Anbar; from the mountains of Korea to the streets of Kandahar. You teach us that the price of freedom is great. Your sacrifice should challenge all of us – every single American – to ask what we can do to be better citizens.

There will be more danger in the months ahead. We will face new tests and unforeseen trials. But thanks to the sacrifices of those who have served, we have forged hard-earned progress, we are leaving Iraq to its people, and we have begun the work of ending this war.

Thank you, God Bless you, and God Bless the United States of America. Semper Fi.

He gave credit to the hard work were it was really due, the troops on the ground. That was the most important of the speech to me. The Marines sure appreciated it as do I.

It was a good speech, it's a good plan and on the Foreign policy front so far, I give him full credit and support. He's doing all the right things, in my opinion.

Now on the Domestic side of the house, he sure could use a lotta work.

Notice Obama still just can't quite bring himself to utter the word 'victory'...

“We have forged hard-earned progress, we are leaving Iraq to its fate, and we have begun the work of ending this war.”

Is Iraqization a word in the same sense that Vietnamization was?

The last administration had no exit plan at all and the republicans were perfectly alright about that.

If Obama had said on 3o June 2010 the troops will all be out. He would be accused of just abondoning the Iraqis.

If he said the same thing for 31 August 2010, same response.

But he makes plans. He sets a due date and plans on keeping a contigancy to assist the Iraqis to take off in the right direction, information and then get the rest out.

It's alright. I trust Obama's plans over george bush's no plans. < :-)

to american posters: once all those trained killing machines have been repatriated to american soil, what will be done with them? especially given the american unwillingness to disarm.

Notice Obama still just can't quite bring himself to utter the word 'victory'...

That is because, for the sake of honesty and a fair appraisal, he would have to put the word "pyrrhic" before the word "victory".

But I have a feeling that honesty and fair appraisals are not appreciated much by you. You know, maybe, just maybe, America is sick of your pom-poms, mini-skirt, cartwheels and silly chants.

a nation that exists only because free men and women have bled for it from the beaches of Normandy to the deserts of Anbar; from the mountains of Korea to the streets of Kandahar.

None of the blood in those places have jack squat to do with the existence of the United States of America. If this is a quote from Obama, he really ought to go wipe his nose off now.

Not to belittle the sacrifices of the men and women of the service, but that is a load of crap that our soldiers and our people need to STOP believing. Iraq had NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to do with our security or our existence. Afghanistan had something to do with security at first, but our continued presence and sacrifice there is not related to either.

The whole of America needs to realize that we need to get out of those places, freaking yesterday.

The whole of America needs to realize that we need to get out of those places, freaking yesterday.

Oh, yeah, and they need to balk at the idea of another unfounded military action based on lies about our security and our existence cough, should we ever be asked for another. That goes double for the members our of military.

Notice Obama still just can't quite bring himself to utter the word 'victory'...

And that is because "victory", like "mission accomplished" is something that can only be called as such after sufficient time has passed.

That goes double for the members our of military.

Hey there,

Maybe you should listen to our President about our Military.

Your sacrifice should challenge all of us – every single American – to ask what we can do to be better citizens.

I think your failing in his challenge likeitis.

My boy says:

Notice Obama still just can't quite bring himself to utter the word 'victory'...

Maybe he's waiting for you to lead the troops to victory and glory.

OR...more likely, it's because Pres. Obama is smarter than the idiots who believe you can defeat an ideal.

Here's an idea: Why don't you do us all a favor and tell us your blue print for total victory in the global war on terrorism.

Who's supposed to show up and sign the surrender treaty on main decks of the battleship, the boogey man?

Taka

"he's going to strike the perfect balance"

Heh, he's going to take the perfect credit for this victory, which would never come if he'd had his way from the get-go.

"Notice Obama still just can't quite bring himself to utter the word 'victory'"

U.S. troops are still involved in combat in Iraq. But even after the last combat troops leave in victory, don't expect the president to use the word 'victory.' That would imply that we're stronger/smarter than our enemies, and that, of course, would offend some people.

"Pres. Obama is smarter than the idiots who believe you can defeat an ideal"

That ideal bein' torturing / killing / enslaving us without hesitation or remorse. Yeah, you'd have to be a real idiot to believe we could ever defeat that.

Yap! its time get the hell out of there

sailwind -

Maybe you should listen to our President about our Military.

Here's a better idea: Listen to our military about our military. Basically, most of my USAF colleagues say the following:

1) Iraq was never a threat to the US, so Iraq is no prize, either.

2) Because Iraq is such a non-issue, bush has scored no "victory" with his decision to invade Iraq. That some people think we've "liberated" Iraq is a moot point; Iraq is in no position to either help or harm the US. Their "liberation" means nothing to anyone outside their own borders.

3) Afghanistan is and always has been the more important issue. Afghanistan is where the Taliban aided and abetted Osama bin Laden, who after masterminded 9/11, is still at large. OBL's continued freedom is a defeat to bush and a humiliation to Americans, especially the victims of 9/11 and their loved ones.

4) President of the United States Barack Hussein Obama is and always has been morally and strategically correct in his view that Afghanistan is the larger issue. Refer to number 3.

5) bush is a disgrace to America; Obama is a President we can trust, and we're thankful for his great decision-making abilities, his rightful election, and the support of the true Americans who elected him.

OK sarge,

Why don't you tell us all the "sarge plan" for victory in the global war on terror.

Tell us how your plain is going to make terror a thing of the past.

Taka

"Basically, most of my USAF colleagues say the following:"

Yeah? Basically, all of my people I served with say the following:

The Iraqi dictator ( can't mention his name here for some reason ) had to be dealt with. Bush Sr. made a terrible mistake in allowing the Iraqi dictator to remain in power after the Gulf War.

OK sarge, now that we know what the other guys working drive-thru think, how about that plan for making terror a thing of the past.

What is the plan for total "victory?"

Taka

Sarge -

Yeah?

Yeah. What country did you "serve"?

This must have some connection with why Obama and Joe " Forgot the Website Number" Biden shafted retired Gen. Zinni, after offering to make him ambassador to Iraq.

"You know, I would have appreciated if someone called me and said, 'Minds were changed,'" Zinni said. "But not even to get a call. That's what's really embarrassing."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0209/Snubbing_Zinni.htm

Ooo....my boy's back.

So...how about that plan for victory then. Would you care to spell it out for us?

Taka

Moderator: There is no "my boy." Please address others by their correct user handles.

Hey Moderator, not sure if you know, but the term "my boy" is a colloquism that implies familiarity or endearment. In this case, most likely the former. Not nessecarily calling a poster by an improper name. There's my good deed for the day.

Moderator: It doesn't matter. This isn't a chatroom. All posters are required to address other contributors by their correct user handles.

ANOTSUSAGAMI,

Actually, it's the latter. How can I NOT like someone who provides so much entertainment through unintentional comedy?

Anyway, more on-topically, there have been two posters here at JT who have complained on this thread that Pres. Obama won't mention the word, "victory" regarding the global war on terror. However, neither are willing, or, apparently able, to describe how that victory can be attained. They do this while trying to convince others that the fight, they can't figure out how to win, must be fought.

I go back to my original point. There are few places on the internet that you can go to find comedy of that degree. As long as they keep posting here, this is, in my opinion, the best free site on the internet for comedy.

Taka

likeitis said, "First off, you seem to be completely unaware of the level of al-Quaida involvement in Iraq. It was, is, and always has been minimal. The situation in Iraq that our troops have been trying to quell for most of their time there was a civil war, ie, it was as much Iraqi on Iraqi as anything." Incorrect. AQ's involvement has been critical from the beginning. It brought in money, weapons, and foreign fighters. It precipitated sectarian violence. For a period of time, AQ in Iraq dominated the insurgency. Of course, the alphabet media and other partisan outlets seem to downplay the role that AQ has in the insurgency.

"I remember, for example, a very senior Baathist commander. He comes from one of the main strains of the Baathist insurgency, linked to the faction headed by Muhammad Yunis al-Ahmed, who gives direction of money principally from Syria. He and some of his organization had a meeting with some very senior members of Zarqawi's organization, principally foreigners but also Iraqis. They thrashed out the issues that they had to deal with, and they're sitting down afterwards in the afternoon drinking some chai. They're just having a conversation. Eventually it turns [in] a certain direction and became somewhat heated, as the Iraqis called them Arabs. [And a senior foreign fighter] turned around and said, "You know, if you Baathist gang return to [the] power you seek, we'll be coming for you." And the Baathists snapped straight back: "We are under no illusions about that, and we will be ready." That's the way it's been from the beginning. [...] Now, that was the summer of 2004. So for anyone in intelligence circles to claim that this [leaning toward the Islamist faction within the insurgency] is a sudden development is deluding themselves. The real problem is that, despite the tensions, despite the turf wars, ... more and more Iraqi fighters are drifting to the Al Qaeda fight. Slowly but surely, the nationalists, the freedom fighters, as they identify themselves, [have] bit by bit lost ground within the insurgency. [...] Nonetheless, the point remains, [that] day you saw the subsuming of a local indigenous Iraqi fight, with very different agendas, by a foreign-inspired, foreign-led, foreign-funded global holy war. Now later, again, that was reversed, and right before the January 30, 2005, election in Iraq, the nationalist insurgents had reclaimed power in that area."

PBS interview with journalist Michael Ware

"The records are "one of the deepest reservoirs of information we've ever obtained of the network going into Iraq," according to a U.S. official closely familiar with intelligence on the insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Analyzed and made public last month by the Army's Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, the documents have led the U.S. military in Iraq to reassess some of its earlier assumptions about the insurgent group and those who carry out most of the suicide missions that are its signature method of attack.

Suicide attacks by the Sunni group against Shiite targets sparked the sectarian violence that swept Iraq in 2006 and the first half of last year. Al-Qaeda in Iraq carried out more than 4,500 attacks against civilians in 2007, killing 3,870 and wounding nearly 18,000, the military announced yesterday.

Based on the Sinjar records, U.S. military officials in Iraq said they now think that nine out of 10 suicide bombers have been foreigners, compared with earlier estimates of 75 percent. Similarly, they assess that 90 percent of foreign fighters entering Iraq during the one-year period ending in August came via Syria, a greater proportion than previously believed."

"Papers Paint New Portrait of Iraq's Foreign Insurgents", Karen DeYoung, Washington Post; January 21, 2008

Moderator- Fair enough. I just want to be clear, if he called him "my friend" you would say the same thing? Because that's what "my boy" is- another word for friend. There are many words that, used in this context mean "friend". I just want to be clear on the rules.

I am very pleased we have a man of peace in the Whitehouse now.

At last the illegal invasion can end. Warmonger Bush and his pals responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths and are out of government, great!!!

ANOTSUSAGAMI and Wottock,

No need to get wrapped around the axle regarding internet handles. That's not the point. The point is, my buddy, rollonarte and sarge both complained on this thread that Pres. Obama won't use the word, "victory" in regards to Iraq or the war on Terror.

They think that is a valid criticism. However, when challenged to provide a definition of what "victory" would be, they scurry away. I'd wager big money that if you were to click on their handles, that they have posted (mostly nonsense) elsewhere since then, and are avoiding this thread like the plague because when push comes to shove, they cannot justify their criticism of Pres. Obama because they cannot define what victory would entail or provide a blue print for how it would be achieved.

So, let's not get wrapped up in the semantics; let's stay focused on the meat.

They supported and encouraged a war that was based on lies, was detrimental to the U.S.'s military readiness, ravaged the American coffers, encouraged terrorism worldwide, and has done more damage to the U.S. and it's allies than it has good.

And now, they have the audacity to beat their chests about the degree of progress made in Iraq, while conveniently forgetting that the entire operation is still a net loss for Iraq, America and the rest of the world.

Peace,

Taka

Earth to rightwingnuts.......there has been no elusive "victory" - just lots and lots of dead people and a lot of us holding our breath to see if the lull in violence can hold without a 140,000 member occupation army.

It's easy to say that President George W. Bush and his administration was the cause of the war, but that would be mistaken. If it was not the 43rd President, it might have been the 44th, or the 45th that would have resumed the Gulf War (like the Korean War, the Gulf War did not end). People don't realize that the whole war was a culmination of decades of policy used to "fight" the USSR by overlooking the actions of other oppressive regimes, currying their favor, and ignoring the underlying instability of the region. From the moment that the world deemed it acceptable to trade with such countries, it funded the governments that were too eager to use such funds to increase their own ability to project power through military might. It is only inevitable that they became threats to other countries in the region... countries with whom First World countries (such as the United States and Great Britain) have treaties and agreements with.

The only victory there can be is a stable Iraq. The form that it will take is up to the Iraqi people.

Peace, Taka: "the entire operation is still a net loss for Iraq, America and the rest of the world"

LOL! Peace, Taka's pathetic attempts to demoralize the Iraqis, U.S. troops and everyone else is, well, pathetic.

Sarge, you're still bailing on Taka's challenge to you - stop dancing around and define victory.

And Taka is bang on the money - "the entire operation is still a net loss for Iraq, America and the rest of the world."

Terrorism is spreading and we have a global recession. Yeah, things sure got real good under the president you voted twice for.

Oh and Sarge, many of those demoralizized U.S. troops you talk of are demoralized because their mates have been killed or they themselves have lost body parts, brain damage, etc. in no small part due to people like you who unthinkingly supported the invasion of Iraq.

lol! There's rollonarte mentioning 'liberation' again! Too much! :-)

If I set out to build a bird house and in the process, break darn near every tool in the tool shed, burn the tool shed to the ground and end up with a bird house that is so poorly constructed, some of the birds attempting to live in it end up being killed, I'm not going to beat my chest and declare "victory" when a family of robins move in.

Yep, I made a bird house. Birds are living there. Net win? Not so much.

The same is true in Iraq. Yes, there are improvements to the quality of life in Iraq. Does it justify everything that occurred to get us there, well...when watching TV, reading a book or driving to work, my mouth doesn't hang agape so I'm going with NO.

Our resident neo-cons cling to their narrow view of what's happening in Iraq because they are too insecure to admit, "yeah, in retrospect, going into Iraq was probably too costly and too great a sacrifice to be considered a good idea."

They would rather more Americans and Iraqis die so that they can save face. Then they talk about others being "pathetic."

What's pathetic (and in a very macabre way, funny) is supporting sending others off to die in a fight you don't even know how to win.

But going back to my earlier analogy, we're not talking about the sharpest tools in the burned down tool shed.

Taka

Taka - very good analogy. Excellent post.