Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Progress in Iraq likely to miss target

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
grytpype Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-28-07 11:19 PM
Original message
Progress in Iraq likely to miss target
Source: LA Times

Progress in Iraq likely to miss target
Military officers doubt any of the three top goals will be achieved before the September assessment.
By Julian E. Barnes
Times Staff Writers

6:08 PM PDT, May 28, 2007

BAGHDAD — U.S. military leaders in Iraq are increasingly convinced that most of the broad political goals President Bush laid out early this year in his announcement of a troop buildup will not be met this summer and are seeking ways to redefine success.

In September, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, is scheduled to present Congress with an assessment of progress in Iraq. Military officers in Baghdad and outside advisors working with Petraeus doubt that the three major goals set by U.S. officials for the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki will be achieved by then.

Enactment of a new law to share Iraq's oil revenue among Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish regions is the only goal they think might possibly be achieved in time, and even that is considered a long shot. The two other key benchmarks are provincial elections and a deal to allow more Sunni Arabs into government jobs.

With overhauls by the central government stalled and with security in Baghdad still a distant goal, Petraeus' advisors hope to focus on smaller achievements that they see as signs of progress, including deals among Iraq's rival factions to establish areas of peace in some provincial cities.

"Some of it will be infrastructure that is being worked, some of it is local security for neighborhoods, some of it is markets reopening," said a senior military official in Baghdad who spoke on condition of anonymity in discussing military tactics.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-usiraq29may29,0,5626129.story?coll=la-home-center



So after Bush's bloody summer, maybe we'll secure a couple of local neighborhoods and open a couple of markets. That's all.

It's not worth a single American life. Not even a single drop of American blood.

We need to get out. And getting out is going to take nine months to a year of complicated planning and effort, and that's if we start now. (Sorry, all you folks who want to miracle the troops home right this minute, it's impossible.) But we're not going to start now, we have to wait until September when the Republicans will finally abandon Bush in the face of the upcoming elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-28-07 11:42 PM
Response to Original message
1. This surge is, in the words of Dick Gephardt, a"miserable failure."
The generals will tell us that they need to "refine" the plan, perhaps come up with a Plan-B, and ask for more time. Bush will ask for more time and money. Pelosi and Reid will be falling over themselves to give Bush whatever he wants, all the while their PR people try to spin this as another Democratic victory.

I am so sick of this charade! All of them have failed the American people!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrPrax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-29-07 12:46 AM
Response to Original message
2. You know...
the part that was missed here is that in all honesty, Bush or his crew haven't hit ANY of the goals they had for Iraq.

To suggest that a 'new set' of artificial 'goals' should or shouldn't be met, when the other ones haven't been touched, is a little much. Last Fall the insurgents weren't bombing the Green Zone -- now they are?

It's as simple as simple gets....the Occupation is adrift.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-29-07 01:36 AM
Response to Original message
3. It's Bush's war, not ours.
Edited on Tue May-29-07 01:37 AM by calteacherguy
Democrats don't have the votes to override a veto, or even to cut off funding. There are only 49 Democrats in the senate.

Even if we had the votes to cut of funding and were successful in cutting it off, the ensuing chaos and bloodbath in Iraq would be blamed on Democrats.

Unfortunately, it's Bush's war. The best we can do is apply pressure to change the policy and hope it has some positive effect at the margins. Pressure from the Republican Party as the 2008 elections draw near also might lead to some significant changes.

The only really significant change in policy, however, will have to come with a Democratic President. We will inherit this occupation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-29-07 02:05 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. It is a Democratic war NOW!
Edited on Tue May-29-07 02:22 AM by IndianaGreen
Democrats had no Constitutional obligation to resubmit a funding bill to Bush, they could have just let the money run out as Dennis Kucinich said to do, or they could have send Bush the same bill that Bush vetoed, over and over again, as Edwards said. Democrats did neither!

Even Keith Olbermann compared Pelosi and Reid's actions to those of Neville Chamberlain when he appeased Hitler at Munich in 1938.

From Thursday on, all the bloodshed in Iraq falls on the heads of Bush and the Democratic Congress alike.

The GOP was right! If Democrats really wanted to end the war, they should have defund it. We didn't. We bought it! We own it!

Kucinich: Congress Endorses Blackmail of Iraq

Washington, May 24 - WASHINGTON, D.C. — Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) hosted a news conference this afternoon with Antonia Juhasz, visiting scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, and Denice Lombard, U.S. Labor Against the War, to discuss implications of Congress insisting on benchmarks in the Iraq supplemental that include passage of the Iraqi “hydrocarbon act.” The hydrocarbon act forces the Iraqis to privatize their oil. Below are the remarks from his speech:

“The Democrats will have an opportunity today to vote in support of, or against, the blackmail of Iraq. A vote for the benchmarks is a vote to demand the privatization of Iraqi oil.

“The House of Representatives will consider yet another version of the Iraq war funding legislation. Not only will Congress give the President another blank check, despite the new Democratic majority, Congress will also endorse the blackmail of Iraq.

“The benchmarks in today’s war supplemental force the Iraqis to privatize their oil industry by demanding passage of the Iraqi “Hydrocarbon Act.” The war supplemental blocks over a billion dollars in reconstruction funds if the Iraqis refuse to comply.

“This administration has misled Congress into thinking that pending Iraqi legislation before their Parliament is about fair distribution of oil revenues. In fact, except for three scant lines, the entire 33-page hydrocarbon law creates a structure to facilitate the privatization of Iraq’s oil.

“The truth is that the “Hydrocarbon Act” will open Iraq’s oil reserves to foreign investors, giving them, and not the Iraqi people, the ability to develop the majority of Iraq’s 80 known oil fields. The Iraq National Oil Company would maintain control of only approximately 17 of these oil fields.

“If this happens, Iraq will be the only country in the Middle East that does not maintain government control of its own oil industry.

“The wealth of Iraq, their rich oil resources, should remain in the hands of Iraq for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

“Passage of any legislation that includes insisting that the Iraq Government push the passage of a hydrocarbon act puts this Congress on record to promote privatizing Iraq's oil.

“Congress must stop all attempts by the Administration to allow multinational oil companies to take over Iraq’s oil resources.

“This is equivalent to blackmail and sends a strong message that the United States is not in Iraq to help the Iraqi people or defend democracy, but that this war is solely about oil.

“I would like to believe that this war has not been about oil. I would like to believe that there was some kind of a righteous cause connected to what we did; but I know better, and the proof is in this Hydrocarbon Act.

“I am here to say that there is another path that can be taken, and that path is part of H.R. 1234, a bill that I have written that would enable the war to end by Congress determining that no more money will go for this war, telling the administration that it must open up diplomatic relations with Syria and Iran, and moving in a direction where we put together an international peacekeeping and security force that would move in as our troops leave.

“And then we set the stage for real reconciliation that cannot come with the U.S. serving as an occupying army.

“We have a moral responsibility to the Iraqi people whose country we have ravaged with war to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars of damage.

“Congress must put a stop to the exploitation of Iraq and ensure reconstruction of a nation now in shambles.”

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=65965

Kucinich: Blood Money

Washington, May 24 - WASHINGTON, D.C. (May 24) — Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) released the following statement after voting against a House amendment crafted to facilitate passage of the Iraq supplemental in Congress. The amendment was designed, among other things, to provide for an increase in the minimum wage. A separate amendment, which Kucinich also voted against, provided funding for the war. The two amendments will be joined in the Senate.

Tying the latest Iraq Supplemental funding plan to an increase in the minimum wage is a new benchmark for cynicism, even by Washington, DC standards.

“It tells American workers that the only way they will get an increase in wages is to continue to support funding the war which is taking the lives of their sons and daughters.

“First blood for oil. Now a minimum wage for maximum blood. Aren’t the American people giving enough blood for this war without having to give more to have a wage increase?

“What’s happened to our country? We are losing our moral compass. We’re losing our sense of justice. We’re losing touch with the difference between right and wrong.

“We do not have to continue to fund this war. We must leave Iraq now. Support our troops and bring them home. HR 1234 is a plan to end the war and stabilize Iraq and give Iraqis control of their oil.

“We must take a new path. We must take a path of truth and justice.”

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=66172
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grytpype Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-29-07 05:26 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Oh, stuff it.
It's Bush's war. It's the Republican's war.

You'd have to be totally fucking insane to try to pin this war on the Democrats unless you're a Republican and you're trying to save the GOP. I didn't read your post, but if that's what Kucinich is saying then he's as stupid as I think he is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jokerman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-29-07 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. "I didn't read your post"
You didn't even read the post but you more than willing to attack the person who posted it. How stupid is that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gen. Jack D. Ripper Donating Member (547 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-29-07 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. Responsibility lies in the hands of those who don't act
The war belongs to anyone who allows it to go on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-29-07 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #4
11. How? There are only 50 Dems in the senate. Explain. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-30-07 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #11
15. On war funding: Kucinich: Do nothing! Edwards: Do it again!
Democrats had no Constitutional obligation to resubmit a funding bill to Bush, they could have just let the money run out as Dennis Kucinich said to do, or they could have send Bush the same bill that Bush vetoed, over and over again, as Edwards said. Democrats did neither!

All funding bills originate in the House. The GOP did not have enough votes to pass a war funding bill on their own. All Democrats had to do was to do nothing, and let the money run out. A second option would have been to send Bush the same bill he vetoed over and over again.

The lamest excuse is to say that we didn't have a veto proof majority. That's irrelevant! We didn't have to pass shit!

Pelosi is very good at saying "impeachment is off the table," a coward's way out of meeting their Constitutional responsibilities to defend the Republic against a budding tyrant.

Why didn't Pelosi say that "war funding is off the table?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
durablend Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-29-07 09:47 AM
Response to Original message
7. Nevertheless, come September "we're making progress"
"We've turned the corner and got those bastards on the run! Just six more months should do it!"

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-29-07 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
8. Ya think?
It was bullshit coming out the door, why would it change?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-29-07 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
9. No problem, the Congress will pony up another $100B as soon
as Smirk says he wants it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-29-07 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
10. Given that the target is in Pakistan and they keep shooting in Iraq...
Yeah, I say that they are going to miss the target.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barrett808 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-29-07 09:43 PM
Response to Original message
13. Who does Barnes ask for comments? Kagan at AEI.
Why do reporters keep going back to these mobsters?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
medlakeguy Donating Member (14 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-29-07 11:14 PM
Response to Original message
14. They're better off without us
Ever since we've been in Iraq its gone downhill, who's to say more and more of the same is gonna fix it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 12:29 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC