Surge Succeeds

Boo-effing-whoo.

Let the Iraqis worry about their own water, food etc...

This has not been our problem since we stopped looking for WMD.

Are you suggesting we have to rebuid this dust bowl?

woiyo wrote:

Boo-effing-whoo.

Let the Iraqis worry about their own water, food etc...

This has not been our problem since we stopped looking for WMD.

Are you suggesting we have to rebuid this dust bowl?

Well, that's an honest response.
Something, however, not many have thought before, less alone said openly.

Have anything constructive to add, like maybe an opinion relative to the question?

woiyo wrote:

Have anything constructive to add, like maybe an opinion relative to the question?

I don't know neither who said that you are pro-Bush.

My opinion about that? I actually don't have one this matter, to be honest.

"Failure to achieve tangible progress toward reconciliation requires a strategic reassessment (come September)"

BAGHDAD (AP) -- Iraq's largest Sunni Arab political bloc announced its withdrawal from the government Wednesday, undermining efforts to seek reconciliation among the country's rival factions, and two bombing attacks in Baghdad killed at least 67 people.

In one attack, 50 people were killed and 60 wounded when a suicide attacker exploded a fuel truck near a gas station in western Baghdad. Another 17 died in a separate car bomb attack in central Baghdad.

The U.S. military announced the deaths of four American soldiers, three of whom were killed by a sophisticated, armor-piercing bomb. Britain also announced the death of one of its soldiers, by a roadside bomb in Basra.

Rafaa al-Issawi, a leading member of the Front, said at a news conference that the bloc's six Cabinet ministers would submit their resignations later in the day.

Al-Issawi said the decision to pull out from the government followed what he called Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's failure to respond to the Accordance Front. It gave him seven days to meet its demands, and the ultimatum expired Wednesday.

Well, you see, woiyo, I'm just a simple, fairly uneducated person.

I really thaught that you meant what you wrote, namely asking a response to your question.

Thanks for reminding me of my inabilties.

Walter
Experience hints that there isn't much to be gained in responding to the fellow.

The news below isn't good. Petraeus' hope is to convince enough folks in the capital that the Americans want to, and can, provide the peace and stability for governance to actually function. That has to entail participation of the three main interest groups. As Mullen (Pace's likely replacement) said yesterday,

Quote:

"Failure to achieve tangible progress toward reconciliation requires a strategic reassessment (come September)"

The neoconservative/AEI crowd, who wish a permanent US military presence in Iraq, will continue, under any imaginable set of circumstances, to attempt to forward the idea, accurate or not, that either the surge is working or, if it doesn't, that another bright and shiney new plan MUST be put in its place because the consequences of "failure" here are too dire, strategically and morally. There surely is a moral argument to be made, but these boys aren't the ones to make it. And there are strategic concerns but again, this crowd clearly have no credibility left on that aspect either.

The WH will, by the nature of who they are and as evidenced in everything they've done to date, forward whatever narrative their strategists deem electorally favorable (as DiIulio put it, "Everything, and I mean everything, is run by the political wing.")

The Pentagon is, at least to me, more opague or complex in motivation. Certainly, part of this picture will be what we'd hope...humanitarian concerns along with unbiased/non-partisan consideration of middle east/world stability and prosperity. But we are surely deluded romanticists if we don't add in to this equation the war-happy dynamic which arises out of the militarization of the US economy and the modern symbiotic relationship between governance and corporate interests.

Quote:

BAGHDAD (AP) -- Iraq's largest Sunni Arab political bloc announced its withdrawal from the government Wednesday, undermining efforts to seek reconciliation among the country's rival factions, and two bombing attacks in Baghdad killed at least 67 people.

In one attack, 50 people were killed and 60 wounded when a suicide attacker exploded a fuel truck near a gas station in western Baghdad. Another 17 died in a separate car bomb attack in central Baghdad.

The U.S. military announced the deaths of four American soldiers, three of whom were killed by a sophisticated, armor-piercing bomb. Britain also announced the death of one of its soldiers, by a roadside bomb in Basra.

Rafaa al-Issawi, a leading member of the Front, said at a news conference that the bloc's six Cabinet ministers would submit their resignations later in the day.

Al-Issawi said the decision to pull out from the government followed what he called Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's failure to respond to the Accordance Front. It gave him seven days to meet its demands, and the ultimatum expired Wednesday.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Iraq.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

do you think it is the US responsibility to re-build Iraq?

As a direct consequence of the US decision to invade Iraq, there are now some two million refugees displaced into neighboring countries. This constitutes the second or third largest refugee crisis in the world presently. Roughly one half of Iraqis now life on a dollar a day. The number of dead is certainly in the hundreds of thousands. The number with limbs blown off, eyes lost, burn victims...god knows.

Analysis says war could cost $1 trillion
Budget office sees effect on taxpayers for decade
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | August 1, 2007

WASHINGTON -- The war in Iraq could ultimately cost well over a trillion dollars -- at least double what has already been spent -- including the long-term costs of replacing damaged equipment, caring for wounded troops, and aiding the Iraqi government, according to a new government analysis.

The United States has already allocated more than $500 billion on the day-to-day combat operations of what are now 190,000 troops and a variety of reconstruction efforts.

In a report to lawmakers yesterday, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that even under the rosiest scenario -- an immediate and substantial reduction of troops -- American taxpayers will feel the financial consequences of the war for at least a decade.

woiyo wrote :

Quote:

do you think it is the US responsibility to re-build Iraq?

i don''t know if you have ever heard of the POTTERY RULE - also called "you break it , you own it , you fix it" - told by colin powell to president bush .
please see link below for article to refresh your memory . you might find it quite enlightening - i certainly had my memory "refreshed" .
hbg



INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE

hbg, Some times it's more constructive to "leave" and let the natives solve their internal problems

- like Vietnam.

That's also an option to "repair" what one breaks.