No End in Sight

[TulipO]

Wow. All I can say is wow. This might be all that needs to be said about the Iraq War. It was made by a guy who originally supported the invasion. People should check it out *cough* arch *cough*

[The NZA]

ill look it up, there's a torrent site (mostly conspiracy shit) that usually has these. Sen told me to get one called "why we fight" or something similar too.

[Reverend Jax]

Yeah, Bill Maher was talking about this movie last week. He said he originally thought the war was lost from the get-go, but since watching the movie now thinks there was a good chance that things could have gone well if they weren't mishandled to such a cartoonishly lampoonish extent.

[TulipO]

Yeah, that's the gist of it. It's very interesting. It makes you wonder where the fuck all that money went even more. I mean, we shouldn't have been there in the first place, but then the idiots couldn't even do it right. I don't know if this administration is really stupid, really criminal or a healthy combination of the two. The film is great though.

[archangel]

Has more to do with military planning than adminstrative micromanaging.

 

You have to remember that contingencies and what not are set in place, by the Pentagon, long before these fights happen. The President gets on his phone and says 'invade Iraq' and some clerk goes into a filing room, takes out a binder, makes a bunch of copies, and hands them out. The problem here is that the planners completely ignored history and decided to try to fight this conventionally. The thing is, when things get this bungled, the ultimate blame lies at the feet of the Commander in Chief, who should have seen the problems as they were occuring and demanded they be changed. If Patreus would have been put in from the beginning, or right around the Iraqi Elections, things might be very, very different today.

 

But to even suggest that 'this war is lost' when all the information comming out of Iraq for the past two-three months is saying otherwise is utterly absurd. You're basically doing the reverse of what the Administration did: instead of ignoring the bad news, you're blatantly ignoring the progress being made and the massive turn arounds.

 

Couple that with the disgraceful tactics being used by MoveOn.org and you have one hell of a HYPOCRITE moment.

 

I wonder whatever happened to 'listen to your generals on the ground'. I guess that really means '....the ones that agree with US'.

[TulipO]

Has more to do with military planning than adminstrative micromanaging.

 

Gotta disagree here. If that were true then why were Rumsfeld and Cheney pulling qualified people from the State Department off of the task forces and ORHA and CPA at the last minute? They favored putting Chalabi in power and the State Department thought the guy was a total fraud. It was an internal squabble at the high levels. The military, ORHA and everyone else in the Green Zone were left holding their dicks while Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz played puppet masters. The people over there who were supposed to be in charge were not given the tools to do their jobs. Then Lord Bremer, oh christ don't even get me started on that happy asshole. De-Baathification? Nice work. Who was putting 22 year olds with a brand new BA and no experience in municiple planning in charge of solving the traffic problems in Baghdad? The paper trail leads all the way to the top. Not to the actual military.

 

 

Anyway, in my opinion an war of imperialism is always lost, so it doesn't matter what anyone says. Once again, we should not have been there in the first place. After we got rid of Sadaam we didn't help the Iraqi people. Instead we put thousands of armed Iraqi people out of work. We should be calling the insurgency a labor riot. I mean we didn't even utilize Iraqi resources or hire Iraqi people to at least try and stimulate their economy. Instead we paid halliburton millions of dollars to ship sundy items and provide services to the Green Zone.

[archangel]

Gotta disagree here. If that were true then why were Rumsfeld and Cheney pulling qualified people from the State Department off of the task forces and ORHA and CPA at the last minute? They favored putting Chalabi in power and the State Department thought the guy was a total fraud. It was an internal squabble at the high levels.

...except Rumsfeld can't remove anyone from the STATE department, only the Secretary of State or the President can.

The people over there who were supposed to be in charge were not given the tools to do their jobs. Then Lord Bremer, oh christ don't even get me started on that happy asshole. De-Baathification? Nice work. Who was putting 22 year olds with a brand new BA and no experience in municiple planning in charge of solving the traffic problems in Baghdad? The paper trail leads all the way to the top. Not to the actual military.

really.De-Baathification comes from set American policy dating back to World War II, you do understand this, right? You also understand that the only people in a position to guage whether or not people are qualified to do a proper job are those actually hiring, since neither you nor I are privy to those files for legal purposes? You also understand that, while all this is a nice discussion, it has NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW THE FIGHTING WAS MISHANDLED? You can talk to me about buerocrats all day till your blue in the face, but buerocrats aren't soldiers.

Anyway, in my opinion an war of imperialism is always lost, so it doesn't matter what anyone says.

yup, why look at facts when rhetoric is so much more convenient.

After we got rid of Sadaam we didn't help the Iraqi people. Instead we put thousands of armed Iraqi people out of work.

i know! just think of all those people who no longer run the rap rooms, torture rooms, dungeons, and Kurdish Killing Squads that are now out of jobs.Excuse me for a bit..these crocodile tears are having a hard time coming out.

I mean we didn't even utilize Iraqi resources or hire Iraqi people to at least try and stimulate their economy. Instead we paid halliburton millions of dollars to ship sundy items and provide services to the Green Zone.

because there was no infrastructure, and because there's no reason to take their resources when they're desperately needed to rebuild their country, much like we could all easily right off massive amounts of costs simply by using Iraqi oil to fuel our tanks and planes, but aren't because that would be theft. We're not the UN.

God, I've missed this! Don't ever leave me again, y'hear?!

[TulipO]

Rumsfeld DID pull people who worked for the State Department off of Jay Garner's ORHA team. Actual qualified people! Also the film that the topic is about is about the mishandling of the occupation of Iraq, not the military struggle. It is about bureaucracy. See it before you start bitching about it okay?

 

When did I bring up fighting in this thread? Also, my personal beliefs are not rhetoric. It's what I believe in, which is to say, not being an imperialistic fuckwad of a nation, like Britain, or US or Stalin's USSR. That said I don't believe that any war of imperialism can be won because it is so wrong to wage one in the first place that no matter how "well it's going it's still no good.

 

Anyway, more later, gotta go...pretend to work

[archangel]

Rumsfeld DID pull people who worked for the State Department off of Jay Garner's ORHA team. Actual qualified people!

i did some digging; ORHA falls under the DoD.

 

That being said, the SecDef can pull people out of anything he wants and refill the slots. Nothing illegal there, regardless of what State may think of the guy (considering that State and Defense have been at odds over policy for....well, always).

 

Also the film that the topic is about is about the mishandling of the occupation of Iraq, not the military struggle. It is about bureaucracy. See it before you start bitching about it okay?

who's bitching?

 

Lookit: 'occupation' is done militarily. so when you say 'occupation', the automatic thought is 'soldiers'. You can't occupy a country with buerocrats...they tend to die rather easily, what with no military training. Or guns.

 

Secondly, the biggest mishandlings were done militarily, not beuarocratically (not saying there weren't mistakes here, just the scope). A Buearocratic mistake can be easily reapaired...but you can't fix an infrastructure while people are still fighting...hence the situation we find ourselves in now. The biggest failings of this war were militarily: without first establishing peace and security it becomes impossible to rebuild. Look at Anbar: utterly lawless up to just a few months ago. Now, after the surge, we're seeing major, major changes there and the region is moving forward with reconciliation and rebuilding. Again: you can't rebuild without the peace, first.

 

Also, my personal beliefs are not rhetoric.

on the contrary: they are. The talks are utterly lacking substance of facts to support it. We are no more imperialistic than Uganda. We don't go putting flags in countries. We're not turning Iraq into a colony. We're going to leave Iraq once they get on their feet and they'll be their own country.

 

Oppinions are just that: oppinions. They are what you believe. However, just because you believe them doesn't make it factual.

[Reverend Jax]

Arch, as for us ignoring the good news, there is no good news. The surge has not reduced the violence in Iraq. American deaths have not gone down, and Iraq deaths have not gone down. By redefining what qualified as insurgency-related violence (car-bombs no long qualify as insurgency related, large bombings are no longer counted, any only gunfire to the back of the head qualifes as insurgency related, while frontal gunfire is categorized as 'random violence'), the administration is trying to make claims like insurgent violence has gone down 75% in some places, when it has not. Anbar is safer, but that's because so many troops have been shifted there, but other places are becoming for violent. I'm not ignoring the "good news", I'm highly skeptical of it because I feel this administration is not trustworthy.

[TulipO]

Okay so we're not marching around in pith helmets sticking flags everywhere (although that would be darkly comical) but the rules for "imperialism" have changed. Deposing a government which is not friendly to ones economic interests and helping to facilitate a government that DOES is the new imperialism.

 

Furthermore I never said what Rumsfeld did was illegal. It was self-serving (and by self I don't mean Rumsfeld personally I refer to him, his cronies and the others who supported broad ideaology rather than competence) and idiotic. Why would you replace people with actual experience with 22 year old neocons simply because they are neocons?

 

Okay allow me to rephrase: The film deals with the mishandling of the occupation of Iraq on the bureaucratic level.

 

**On a side note: Barbara Bodine who worked with ORHA compiled a list of 20 places that should have had top military protection from looting in baghdad. Among these were the museum and library. As we know the museum and library were looted and destroyed and a few thousand years of history along with it because her list was almost completely ignored. Can you name the one place on the list that did recive protection? That's right, the ministry of oil.

[Reverend Jax]

Arch, this movie was made by someone who supported the invasion and still thinks it was the right thing to do. The thesis of the movie is that the policy (not the military) is to blame for the situation. And I'm not clear, but TulipO can answer this for me, does the film claim the situation in Iraq is beyond the point of no return, or does it claim it's fixable?

 

To be clear Arch, I disagree with the position that we should have invaded, but I can respectfully disagree. I disagree that we can fix it by staying there indefinitely, but I can respectfully disagree. What I have no respect for is all the "liberals are just ignoring all the good news, just a couple of bad apples, stay the course, question the war demoralizing he troops, let's just wait and still if these minor changes will fix things one year from now, don't criticize until we hear the reports in 6 months, we're kick ass in Iraq" fantasy talk.

[archangel]

Arch, as for us ignoring the good news, there is no good news. The surge has not reduced the violence in Iraq.

The military, congressmen and Senators, and even journalists who have gone to the region would disagree with you. We are actually seeing major security progress there.

 

but the rules for "imperialism" have changed. Deposing a government which is not friendly to ones economic interests and helping to facilitate a government that DOES is the new imperialism.

Right, because Deposing Dictators and genocidal maniacs isn't what the United States of America does..

 

wait a sec. I'm wrong...it IS what we do.

 

Don't play fast and loose with words, Comrade.

 

What I have no respect for is all the "liberals are just ignoring all the good news, just a couple of bad apples, stay the course, question the war demoralizing he troops, let's just wait and still if these minor changes will fix things one year from now, don't criticize until we hear the reports in 6 months, we're kick ass in Iraq" fantasy talk.

there's a difference between not realizing there are problems in Iraq and thinking all is honky dory and quite another to admit that whle problems persist, things are changing for the better. The problem is, on the other side of that, refusing to admit that there is progress when it's obvious and clear is just as intellectually dishonest as those who continue to try and paint a 'nothing to see here, everything's ok' look. General Patreus is not a 'yes man'. He loudly criticized our handling of this war during the beginning, and his handling of the war since has been very competent and what should have been done from the getgo. But refusing to admit that there is success because it's not politically expedient (such as what the Democratic Whip said in a televised interview "Good news in Iraq would mean bad news for us Democrats.") is beyond dishonest: it's a disgrace to their office.

 

For YEARS democrats shouted 'listen to your generals (Patreus)', and they were right to do so. Now that the very General they unanimously voted in and lauded him with praises is giving his report, because they disagree with it (even though he's there...and they're not) they're saying 'no, he's wrong'. Bullshit! He's fucking THERE while you're fanning your ass in DC.

 

I'm not saying what you're quoting: no where near it. What i AM saying is you cannot ignore the good news when we actually have evidence of change just because it isn't what you like.

[Reverend Jax]

General Patreus is not a 'yes man'.

You have no idea what it means to be in the military, do you. Active-Duty Generals can't go up to a podium and publicly disagree with the President's policy. We could have lost 50,000 soldiers in one month an if the President told Patreus to say the strategy is working, he would have two choices: say it or resign.

 

Progress is not being made. The statistics are being skewed by new standards for what accounts for "sectarian violence." Violence is just as high, but now "sectarian violence" is down, while "random violence" is up.

[archangel]

You have no idea what it means to be in the military, do you. Active-Duty Generals can't go up to a podium and publicly disagree with the President's policy.

Right...except this general did just that and was promoted for it.

 

And everyone who's actually BEEN there on the ground and currently over there disagree with you, jax. The Washington Posts article which your getting your information from was utterly incorrect and hasn't been able to back up their info on this, and this is directly from CENTCOM and Patreus both. Petraeus denied outright that any such metric for counting "sectarian violence" exists. As he said, if a Sunni kills a Shia or Shia kills a Sunni, its violence. He said he had no idea where the Washington Post got such an idea, but it was false.

 

 

Again: you cannot ignore information becuase you disagree with it.

[archangel]

in fact: Straight from the Horses MouthStatement from Multi-National Force - Iraq, regarding ethno-sectarian murders Tuesday, 11 September 2007 MULTI-NATIONAL FORCE-IRAQ PRESS DESKBAGHDAD, Iraqhttp://www.mnf-iraq.com703.343.8790Sept. 11, 2007Release A070911dStatement from Multi-National Force - Iraq, regarding ethno-sectarian murdersBAGHDAD, Iraq - Multi-National Force-Iraq defines ethno-sectarian murder as a murder committed by one ethnic/religious person/group directed at a different ethnic/religious person/group, where the primary motivation for the event is based on ethnicity or religious sect.Ethno-sectarian violence is defined as an event and any associated civilian deaths caused by or during murders/executions, kidnappings, direct fire, indirect fire, and all types of explosive devices identified as being conducted by one ethnic/religious person/group directed at a different ethnic/religious person/group, where the primary motivation for the event is based on ethnicity or religious sect.In our collection of data, a shot to the front or back of the head is not used to determine ethno-sectarian murder.The number of ethno-sectarian murders has declined significantly since the height of the sectarian violence in December 2006. Iraq-wide, the number of ethno-sectarian deaths has decreased by over 55 percent, and it would have decreased much further if it not for the casualties inflicted by barbaric al-Qaeda bombings attempting to reignite sectarian violence.

-30-

FOR MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE MNF-I PRESS INFORMATION CENTER AT: \n MNFIPRESSDESK@IRAQ.CENTCOM.MIL This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it . FOR THIS PRESS RELEASE AND OTHERS VISIT WWW.MNF-IRAQ.COM I love this...there's more:From Patreus's Testimony:

PETRAEUS: “Let me just take advantage of this brief break here to set the record straight on something. There’s this mythology out there, and apparently an unnamed intelligence source who said that we only count executions if they’re shot in one part of the head and the other.

That is just not true.

“As only the military can, we have a three page document on ethno-sectarian violence methodology and it is fairly comprehensive and it’s pretty logical and rational. And in the execution category, it says civilians that show signs of torture, being bound, blindfolded, or shot anywhere in the head, and so forth. So if I could just put that one to rest ... ”

[Reverend Jax]

I guess you're right. With the security we've provided, the Iraqi government has been able to make real progress in establishing effective control. We should be out of there by Christmas at the rate the Iraqi government is making progress.

[archangel]

Don't be such a schmuck.

 

The biggest thing that everyone's been saying for years now is 'no political progress can take place without there first being security.' This is a fact. We started this surge what? Six months ago? The surge didn't have all of it's troops in place until about three months ago. In that time, however, we have seen major changes and areas that were once impossible quieting down and becoming safer every single day. This is an ongoing process which requires time.

 

You keep forgetting that we're trying to accomplish something which has never been seen before in that region of the world, something that took us centuries to perfect, and (with modern technologies) took Japan and Germany decades to perfect. We're trying to do this in UNDER a decade.

 

So please, stop ignoring what's going on because you don't like it.

[archangel]

 

Empty wards in Baghdad hospital offer hope

By Haider Salahudeen

 

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A row of beds lies empty in the emergency ward of Baghdad's Yarmouk Hospital. The morgue, which once overflowed with corpses, is barely a quarter full.

 

Doctors at the hospital, a barometer of bloodshed in the Iraqi capital, say there has been a sharp fall in victims of violence admitted during a seven-month security campaign.

 

Last month the fall was particularly dramatic, with 70 percent fewer bodies and half the number of wounded brought in compared to July, hospital director Haqi Ismail said.

 

"The major incidents, like explosions and car bombs, sometimes reached six or seven a day. Now it's more like one or two a week," he told Reuters.

 

The relative calm at the Yarmouk hospital lends weight to U.S. and Iraqi government assertions that a security campaign launched around Baghdad in February has achieved results.

 

In one emergency ward at the hospital, in a Sunni Muslim district of west Baghdad which has suffered disproportionately from sectarian conflict, just two patients were being treated. Neither showed signs of serious injury.

 

At the hospital morgue, only two of the eight refrigerated rooms contain bodies, many of them dating to violence weeks ago.

 

Bloodstained floors in the empty sections were the only reminder of days when the morgue was so flooded with victims of bombings and shootings that the bodies overflowed, laid out on the ground outside.

 

"In the last month there's been a really noticeable reduction," said surgeon Ali Adel. "Now most of the cases that come to us are ... random gunfire and accidents".

 

"There are still cases (of militant violence) but compared to the last month, very few, thank God".

 

LAST-DITCH EFFORT

 

The security plan begun in February, backed by thousands of extra U.S. troops, was seen as a last-ditch attempt to stem four years of conflict which raged since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died in that time.

 

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said last week violence in Baghdad and surrounding areas had fallen by 75 percent and U.S. President George W. Bush said "ordinary life is beginning to return" to the city.

 

Deputy Health Minister Amer Khozai said the picture from Yarmouk was reflected in figures from the main morgue in central Baghdad, where the number of bodies received had fallen from up to 180 on the worst of days to as low as 12 a day.

 

"The problem now is some cars exploding here and there ... (but) it's clear from the emergency departments in the hospitals that the situation is calm and stable in Baghdad," he said.

 

But despite the improvement in Baghdad, violence still rages in other regions of Iraq, and Sunni Islamist al Qaeda militants have promised a renewed campaign to mark the Muslim holy month of Ramadan which started last week.

 

As a Reuters television team filmed outside the hospital on Sunday, an explosion less than a kilometer away shook the building, and a familiar black plume of smoke rose into the sky.

 

Within minutes the first casualties were rushed into the hospital. In all seven bodies, including three elderly women, were brought in, and doctors prepared for the influx of wounded.

 

"Realistically speaking, today there are still injuries, there are still wounded people, victims, and explosions," hospital director Ismail said.

[TulipO]

Wow. The situation has gone from tragic, bloody, horrible and constant, to tragic, bloody, horrible and less frequent. Hey! did you hear about how the corporations who have the bids in Iraq have immunity to Iraqi law? That is, just, wow.

[archangel]

1. Source?

 

2. You're ignoring what's being said here, again, purposefully. Even the doctors are saying 'the situation is still not what we want it to be, but there's no denying that there has been DRAMATIC improvements.'

 

You are unwilling to accept that fact and, as such, cannot have a serious debate on this issue.

[TulipO]

1. I read it on the front page of the New York Times this afternoon, and it was also one of the feature topics on Democracy Now this evening.

 

 

I'm not ignoring what is being said arch, but i don't see what you're getting at. So what if things are less terrible than they were? Does that make up for what has gone on there? Does it account for the gross incompetence and petty games, the willful deceit, and arrogant bravado that has led to the deaths of so many? I will be glad for the Iraqi people if things truly do get better, but I'm having a hard time believing it after all of the bullshit this administration has spewed about this situation already. Also, i think it's more important for people to be aware of the mendacity and greed that bungled this situation so spectacularly, than to focus on the clean up of said fuck up. I'm not unwilling to accept it, but I'm skeptical about how honest people are being at the higher levels.

 

Do you still stand by the notion that this administration has not been dishonest?

[archangel]

I'm not ignoring what is being said arch, but i don't see what you're getting at. So what if things are less terrible than they were? Does that make up for what has gone on there? Does it account for the gross incompetence and petty games, the willful deceit, and arrogant bravado that has led to the deaths of so many?

Yes, yes you are.

 

You continue down the rhetoric of 'petty games, willful deceit' when i can again bring up a litany of quotes from Democrats and World Leaders dating back to 1998 and leading up to the Iraq War that were saying the same thing Bush has said, but you willfully ignore that for your 'Bush Lied' Mantra.

 

Does it make up for what has gone on there? Nothing to make up. We handled the insurgency improperly and, as a result, the insurgents were able to kill thousands and thousands of Iraqi Civilians. But now we're implementing the correct strategy, and there has been a sharp decline that the deaths have gone from a flood to a trickle. If one or two people a week are ending up dead, then you should check out OUR morgues in the States at any time. That's about what we have here, and we're not occupied by a foreign force.

 

I will be glad for the Iraqi people if things truly do get better, but I'm having a hard time believing it after all of the bullshit this administration has spewed about this situation already. Also, i think it's more important for people to be aware of the mendacity and greed that bungled this situation so spectacularly, than to focus on the clean up of said fuck up. I'm not unwilling to accept it, but I'm skeptical about how honest people are being at the higher levels.

Right, which is double talk for 'things are obviously getting better and I can't overtly say they're not without looking like a fool, but I don't believe it because this 'inept group of lackeys who can't do anything right' are apparantly competent enough to keep the wool over our eyes for such a long, long time.'

 

 

Do you still stand by the notion that this administration has not been dishonest?

In regards to?