I'm not buying this "Anbar province" miracle turn-around business

[underpants]

Basically they pick a remote area that the news guys would never come near and create their own reports about how great everything is suddenly going. T

Truth be told the most likely scenerio is this (with the first top level acknowledgement of actual counter insurgency tactics actually being initiated)

1.Petraeus paid everyone off (as mentioned in "Fiasco")
2. They (the Iraqis) are just using American muscle to get alQaeda in Iraq's hands out of the goodie bag.
3. some mixture of #'s 1 and 2 with a whole lot of DoD B.S. thrown in.

The Pentagon has developed its own direct spin line to RW talkradio and the conservative blogosphere
http://harpers.org/archive/2007/07/hbc-90000539

This completely coincides with this sudden new found success.

[TwilightGardener]

1. The Sunni natives are fighting the "al Qaeda linked" foreign fighters.

That's not really our doing--they would do it anyway, whether we were there or not, because they don't like the foreign fighters to gain any power or influence--the Sunnis are trying to grab power themselves, and see them as a threat. But they're not being very nice--some pretty brutal shit going on between those factions (vigilante justice-type shit), and our military is sort of turning a blind eye to it and letting these guys take care of each other.

[fob]

2. What I want to know is why everybody isn't asking this...

If the "surge" is so fantastic and working all these miracles, isn't that an indictment on bush*/cheney/rummy's initial decision to not send enough troops in the first place?

How can this be a "success" when they were fucking told to do this AT THE BEGINNING, only to fire the guy who told them.

[underpants]

4. Whoa whoa whoa there little spitfire

don't be all getting all fired up with the recent history and "you'd have to be an idiot not to have seen this coming" stuff

:evilgrin:

Anyone saying such won't be allowed near a mic and a camera.

Oh and they are all about the future--aren't YOU about the future??? well aren't you???

[speakclearly]

9. You are absolutely right.................

Bush's numbskill policy was to go in with just a small number of troops, and then withdraw many after Saddam was defeated. That led to the insurgency. Many had recommended for more troops on the group in post-war Iraq.

We called for a "change in strategy" and "reinforcements". We didn't think it was politically possible for Bush to admit more troops were needed and actually send them in. Eventually, however, our "change in strategy" calls caused him to do just that which is what the ISG called for.

Now we are condemming the "surge" and saying that this is a no go policy, and that it is not really a "change in strategy". Reid has already said "the war is lost".

I know it is unliekly, especially for the clowns in the WH, but if the "surge" should improve conditions and lead to stability in Iraq, then Bush would claim "I was right" and say that "the Dems wanted to give up too easily". While factually it would be true that his initial strategy failed, the public might perceive that he was right and we were wrong in the end. That would be tragic. That's why its important for Reid to pass the ammendment calling for withdrawal as soon as possible. That's why he won't bring up the Defense authorization bill until the Republicans stop the filibuster on the withdrawal ammendment.

[underpants]

13. Welcome to DU

:hi:
if'n I haven't before

Great points. Wolfowitz actually testified that it would only take maybe two regiments to pull this thing off. Depending on how the regiment is set-up that is somewhere between 20-40,000 troops. Total.

Oh what a nightmare that would have been.

[sabra]

3. We are also creating new militia groups...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1355041&mesg_id=1355041

[underpants]

5. Well this can only turn out well huh?

Arming and RE-training the "enemy"

What could possibly go wrong?

[The_Casual_Observer]

6. This thing will last a few weeks, then it's back to normal.

It's the 5th or 6th time they have claimed victory there. This is going to be going on for 20 years at least.

[kenny blankenship]

7. It's like this. They KNOW we are leaving. Since Nov. 06 that has been clear.

They will be on their own without US forces to interpose between the Shia and their communities. Maybe it will be 12 months from now, maybe 24 months from now but it's coming. In the first place they don't need to fight us to expel us from the country anymore, American public opinion has turned decisively against the war and occupation. So that part is over and done.

In the second place they still face a Shia majority that is intent on monopolizing political power for themselves--control over the central government and control over the oil revenues. The Shia have a point to make clear to the Sunni, which we prevent them from doing as long as we're there. We want them to share power and oil revenue, neither of which suit the Shia leadership. We are also are using force to tamp down the sectarian killings. But when we leave the Shia Interior Ministry Police also known as the "death squads " will be free to operate again. The Shia may intend to ethnically cleanse Baghdad (mostly accomplished already) and then impose a street by street clampdown on Sunnis in Anbar Province, possibly under the rubric of routing out Al-Quaida. They may be content to spin Anbar Province off from Iraqi national territory. After all, Iraqi Kurdistan is already gone, seceded in everything but name. But if the Anbar Sunnis intend to use violence to register their anger at being cut out of oil profit sharing, there will be a large scale war in Anbar. Same thing if the Sunni declare their autonomy in Anbar, and repudiate the Baghdad government, but the Shia decide that they cannot afford to part with the Anbar territory.

What would you do if you were a Sunni leader in Anbar Province, knowing that the US is leaving and the Shia are probably about to lay the smack down on your people for any of half a dozen reasons?
You would want to conserve your strength, wouldn't you, and if possible enlarge it with outside help. It doesn't make any sense to attack the American occupiers now, if it ever did. Resentment at losing top dog status fueled the initial waves of Sunni resistance, however a sober awareness that their biggest fight is on the horizon now dictates a prudent regrouping. For all they know, 24 months from now they could be in a fight for their lives. It doesn't make sense to bleed manpower and bullets against a retreating enemy when a worse one is on the way.

[underpants]

8. Can you be more specific?

WOW Kenny. Great post.

I think that is also the most likely actual situation.

[EFerrari]

10. No kidding. Their lips were moving. I don't buy it

or the guided imagery of CNN's Barbara Starr.

/Ack. They're/their :(

[IChing]

11. My neighbor just bought a home theater system from a friend (white van).

$4000 system for $150, no HDMI hookups, no optical, no coaxial
looking at his manual he just brought over.

I'm not buying this administration (white van) bullshit either.

[underpants]

12. LOL

Fell off the back of a truck did it?

:rofl:

[IChing]

14. Thing is these are the same kind of people that watch faux.

I researched his purchase and it will probably last until September if that.
I thought it was an analogy of the general american public.
He keep saying he bought it from a "friend" so I guess it was a Republican.