What kind of commander-in-chief allows this?
The article "Infighting Hampering Baghdad Crackdown" at
pf.html shows how W who doesn't care if the surge will decimates our troops. As of now "Iraqi commanders are urging the Americans to go after Sunni targets... American officers... acknowledge they are finding little in their initial searches of Baghdad neighborhoods _ suggesting either they received faulty intelligence or that the massive publicity that preceded the operation gave militants time to slip away."
What else is contributing to W's Mission Impossible? The article "Iraq, U.S. Advised To Avoid Offensive Against Militiamen" at
pf.html explains why the insane surge won't work as "In the short-term at least, there can be no military offensive against the militias. Military confrontation, in the current climate, will only strengthen their appeal and swell their ranks," the Baghdad Institute for Public Policy Research concludes.
The institute said the 18-page report, "Dismantling Iraq's Militias," was based on a round-table discussion by six Shiite politicians, two Kurds and a Sunni Arab. Government officials said Thursday it would be considered in setting policy, but some here saw it as reflecting the private thinking of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as more U.S. troops arrive to try to end the violence.
Maliki has publicly declared that the joint effort will target all lawbreakers equally, regardless of sectarian affiliation. But late last year, his advisers said the prime minister was urging the Americans to combat Sunni groups while Iraqi forces focused on Shiite militias.
"The tense situation between the Mahdi Army militia and the U.S. military means that it would be unwise for multinational forces to go into Shia strongholds at this stage," the report says."
Is this the policy for the latest effort to control Baghdad? The article states "Ahmed Shames, a member of Maliki's media office who was a co-author of the report, said in an interview that it will be widely read in the government, but "it does not mean the government will follow these recommendations."
When the main guy gets a surrogate to speak for him you know the main guy wants plausible deniability to be built into the policy and that is what is going on as "Sadiq al-Rikabi, a political adviser to Maliki and one of the politicians involved in the discussions, said the report emerged from frank discussion and did not necessarily represent the prime minister's views. Rikabi reiterated that Maliki will use force against anyone regardless of sect if political solutions are not possible."
What do the people outside of Maliki's interest say? "The only Sunni Arab in the round table, Mithal al-Alusi, said he was unaware of the report's publication and angered that his name was attached to a document that did not represent his views.
"The Dawa party, they organized this meeting in the name of the Baghdad Institute," Alusi said, referring to Maliki's political party. "More than one [participant], not just me, said there is no place for a political solution for killers, militias and terrorists."
This is precisely what the US Democratic Party has been saying about the surge. The atrocity that W forced upon the Middle East, in the guise of "Operation Iraqi Freedom" can't be won militarily-a political solution is required. "Bubble Boy" doesn't want to use his political capital on negotiating with Syrians and Iranians, although that is part of what his trusted ally Baker, and the Iraqi Study Group, recommended.
W should admit the U.S. is following the 80% solution which allows the Shiites to commit genocide against the 20% Sunni population.
William E. Odom, a retired Army lieutenant general, was head of Army intelligence anddirector of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan. His article "Victory Is Not an Option - The Mission Can't Be Accomplished -- It's Time for a New Strategy" at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020901917_
pf.html shatters the viability of the surge as completely as the article's headline, lays to waste the fool's appearance in his flying outfit in front of the Mission Accomplished so many wasted lives and treasures ago.
It states "The new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq starkly delineates the gulf that separates President Bush's illusions from the realities of the war. Victory, as the president sees it, requires a stable liberal democracy in Iraq that is pro-American. The NIE describes a war that has no chance of producing that result. In this critical respect, the NIE, the consensus judgment of all the U.S. intelligence agencies, is a declaration of defeat."
The article points out how big bro 43 frames the discussions of his failures in such a way
that those who refute his ideas are branded as traitors!
Face it-W opened up the fabled "Pandora's Box" of disaster when he attacked Iraq. The article points out that W's propaganda regarding "We must continue the war to prevent the terrible aftermath that will occur if our forces are withdrawn soon," is Orwellian as he states "Reflect on the double-think of this formulation. We are now fighting to prevent what our invasion made inevitable!
Undoubtedly we will leave a mess -- the mess we created, which has become worse each year we have remained."
Also, the panic that W's boys are trying to achieve regarding Iran's role in Iraq "is another absurd notion. One of the president's initial war aims, the creation of a democracy in Iraq, ensured increased Iranian influence, both in Iraq and the region. Electoral democracy, predictably, would put Shiite groups in power -- groups supported by Iran since Saddam Hussein repressed them in 1991. Why are so many members of Congress swallowing the claim that prolonging the war is now supposed to prevent precisely what starting the war inexorably and predictably caused?"
W is trying to invoke the "Tricky Dick" domino theory, but this time there is a basis for fear as Iran could hurt our military and W is alienating the Middle East.
The article points out that big bro 43 has created "a new haven for al-Qaeda in Iraq, and that Defeatocrats, who won the recent election because they were seen as being committed in getting our troops out of Iraq, must do what won them the election. They must "support the troops" by getting them out of a doomed mission!
The article states "The first and most critical step is to recognize that fighting on now simply prolongs our losses and blocks the way to a new strategy. Getting out of Iraq is the pre-condition for creating new strategic options.
Withdrawal will take away the conditions that allow our enemies in the region to enjoy our pain."
The chump-in-chief has placed the mightiest in the history of the world into urban guerrilla warfare, the only situation in which we could lose--not only that, never in the history of these fourth generation warfare scenarios, has the super-power been able to defeat the weaker foe.
In Iraq now our US military must fight with their hands tied. They clear one area and as McCain's phrase the "whack-a-mole" capability of the insurgents to blend into the community, becomes apparent. We can never beat a foe who can't be characterized. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on February 2 that "I believe there are essentially four wars going on in Iraq," Gates said. "One is Shia on Shia, principally in the south. The second is sectarian conflict, principally in Baghdad, but not solely. The third is the insurgency (targeting the Iraqi government and coalition forces). The fourth is al-Qaida. And al-Qaida is attacking, at times, all of those targets."
A specific Iraqi area can be considered safe but any of the four wars could abruptly erupt leaving our soldiers in a living hell never knowing who might be after some "sitting duck" US infidel
What kind of war-time-president allows this?
Gian P. Gentile's, who last year was a tactical battalion commander in Baghdad's Amiriyah district article "Legitimacy Was Step One" at
pf.html explains it as "Could more American troops have eliminated the Sunni insurgency in Amiriyah? Probably not, because the people were not willing to separate themselves from the insurgents. Residents saw the Sunni insurgents as their
final hope for protection from an illegitimate government out to crush them.
Could more American troops have stopped the sectarian violence? Possibly, if this war was still being carried out only by Shiite and Sunni extremist groups.
But it is now a sectarian war of the people."
As the NIE states it is a self-sustaining inter-sectarian struggle between Shia and Sunnis. This was caused by W.