quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Won? No, not yet. But looking good.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Won? No, not yet. But looking good.

And you're falling for it .

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

And, as always, you are in denial when the facts don't fit your ideological preconceptions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Iraq's parliament prepares to leave Green Zone
Tue Jun 17, 2008 1:05pm EDT

BAGHDAD, June 17 (Reuters) - Iraq's parliament will relocate just outside Baghdad's fortified Green Zone compound in September for the first time since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, a sign security is improving, the first deputy speaker said on Tuesday.

Khalid al-Attiya said top parliamentary officials had approved moving to a newly renovated building.

The plan was made possible by a drop in violence to a four-year low, a parliamentary spokesman added.

"Tomorrow the committee of security in parliament will meet the minister of interior and defence to arrange security measures for the (new) building," Attiya said in a statement.

*******************

Remember Those Iraqi Benchmarks? Well, Guess What�

Democrats no longer talk of the 18 benchmarks for measuring progress in Iraq because so much progress has now taken place.
June 17, 2008

Way back in the dark days of 2007, when the only popular question about the Iraq war concerned the degree of tragedy, Congress’s Iraq “benchmarks” were all the rage among Democrats. Every argument against a continued U.S. presence in Iraq was constructed around the Maliki administration’s apparent inability to meet the political and security-based milestones as outlined by America’s Democratic-majority Congress.

Then something happened. The gains of the troop surge allowed the Iraqi government and citizenry to implement the security measures and legislative acts called for by the U.S. The benchmark line of argument quietly died. Here, then, is the brief life and glorious death of the great benchmark trope.

***********************

The Situation on the Ground in Basra and Mosul
Nicholas M. Guariglia
15 Jun 2008

Violence in Iraq has reached a four-year low. The U.S. casualty rate is now 0.72 deaths per day, constituting the eighth month in a row of dramatic improvements as compared to the 4.2 deaths per day from this time last year. Iraqi civilian deaths, too, are down. For some perspective, the monthly murder tolls in Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York City were 48.7, 51.9, and 49.3 a few years ago. Today, less than 400 Iraqi citizens –– throughout the whole country, not just a few cities –– perish on a monthly basis. And this is a war zone.

I guess it could be said that from ’03-’06, the international press and the mainstream media did not report the “good news” from Iraq because good news was scarce. Outside of some brave freelancers, most reporters stayed safe in their Baghdad hotels and reported only on explosions from afar, which were known about only because of an ever-quick newswire.

In the past few months, however, many of our friends in the Western press have exposed to us something worse than blatant bias; we’re seeing a barefaced misunderstanding and miscomprehension of what is happening on the ground in-theater. The recent skirmishes in Basra, and the more recent crackdown in Mosul, have served as an example of this phenomenon.

************

How Prime Minister Maliki Pacified Iraq
By KIMBERLY KAGAN and FREDERICK W. KAGAN
June 10, 2008; Page A17

America is very close to succeeding in Iraq. The "near-strategic defeat" of al Qaeda in Iraq described by CIA Director Michael Hayden last month in the Washington Post has been followed by the victory of the Iraqi government's security forces over illegal Shiite militias, including Iranian-backed Special Groups. The enemies of Iraq and America now cling desperately to their last bastions, while the political process builds momentum.

These tremendous gains remain fragile and could be lost to skillful enemy action, or errors in Baghdad or Washington. But where the U.S. was unequivocally losing in Iraq at the end of 2006, we are just as unequivocally winning today.

By February 2008, America and its partners accomplished a series of tasks thought to be impossible. The Sunni Arab insurgency and al Qaeda in Iraq were defeated in Anbar, Diyala and Baghdad provinces, and the remaining leaders and fighters clung to their last urban outpost in Mosul. The Iraqi government passed all but one of the "benchmark" laws (the hydrocarbon law being the exception, but its purpose is now largely accomplished through the budget) and was integrating grass-roots reconciliation with central political progress. The sectarian civil war had ended.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), swelled by 100,000 new recruits in 2007, was fighting hard and skillfully throughout Iraq. The Shiite-led government was showing an increasing willingness to use its forces even against Shiite militias. The announcement that provincial elections would be held by year's end galvanized political movements across the country, focusing Iraq's leaders on the need to get more votes rather than more guns.

Three main challenges to security and political progress remained: clearing al Qaeda out of Mosul; bringing Basra under the Iraqi government's control; and eliminating the Special Groups safe havens in Sadr City. It seemed then that these tasks would require enormous effort, entail great loss of life, and take the rest of the year or more. Instead, the Iraqi government accomplished them within a few months.

*****************

Thursday · June 12, 2008

The End of the State of Exception in Iraq

by David Pan

Though it is still premature to speak of a victory in Iraq, there seems to be no question that the tide of the war has turned against al-Qaeda and Muqtada al-Sadr's militias and toward the Iraqi government.

...

This turn of events in the last 18 months, and particularly since March, confirms the wisdom of the U.S. military's turn to a classic counterinsurgency approach to the war, involving a focus on protecting the civilian population and building close relationships with local groups. Their ability to effect this turnaround so quickly is a tribute to their flexibility and resourcefulness in shifting their basic stance. But it is also an indication about some of the ideological realities in Iraq.

First, the relative speed with which al-Qaeda and the Sadrists have been pushed out of the main cities indicates the lack of deep support for radical Islamist ideologies within Iraq. Their previous gains were apparently based on a mixture of terror and the U.S. military's unwillingness in the first years of the war to engage with Iraqis on a local level. At the same time, Iraqi nationalist sentiment seems to be stronger than previously thought, when the country seemed to be at risk of descending into a prolonged sectarian civil war. This combination of a nationalist ideology and practical accommodations with local, tribal leaders could lead to a new stability in Iraq if (1) sectarian conflicts can be subordinated to an overarching national consensus and (2) this consensus can be based on an Iraqi nationalism rather than a Ba'athist pan-Arab nationalism.

...

June 12, 2008
Iraq Oil production could increase by 400,000 bpd by the end of 2008

Following up on Iraq Oil status Oil production and output holding steady at higher levels that started in May. Iraq will produce up to 2.9 million bpd by the end of 2008, Hussein al-Shahristani Iraqi Oil Minister 2.9 million bpd would be an increase of about 400,000 bpd from levels at the end of May, 2008 2.53 million bpd.

*****************

This Is Why Facts Matter
Jennifer Rubin - 06.13.2008 - 4:09 PM

Senior Brookings Fellows Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack gave a report today and entertained questions at a Brookings briefing on Iraq. It was the single most illuminating presentation I have witnessed on the status of Iraq and the potential way forward. Neither man can be accused of shilling for either the administration or John McCain for numerous reasons: both have been strong critics of the war and O’Hanlon opposed the war at the onset and still believes on balance it has not made us safer. I understand from Brookings that the entire transcript will be posted, but I offer some highlights below.

O’Hanlon explained that the last three months has been the “spring of the blossoming of Iraqi security forces” and Iraq is on an “impressive trajectory” although we have not yet “reached a stable end point.” He stressed that the 80% reduction in civilian violence was much better than he thought possible. He went through a detailed review of Basra, conceding that Maliki’s actions took the Americans by surprise and that in the first week things went poorly. However, by the second week two brigades were deployed from Al Anbar ( a testimony to massive improvements in Iraq security force logistics) and the mission was successful, allowing the Iraqi army and national police force to now control the streets of Basra.

Pollack echoed these observations, saying that “The headline was the emergence of Iraqi security forces.” He explained that the fundamental shift from Americans leading with Iraqis in support to Iraqis leading not just “hold” but “clear” operations is now “well underway.” He observes that sectarian divisions within the military are receding as mixed Sunni and Shia units have been successful in Basra and Mosul operations. He sees vast improvement in military leadership which “is one of the main reasons for improvement” in the security situation. He credits the military success with allowing for a “fundamental rearrangement” of Iraqi politics, observing that Maliki is now “flying high” with new found respect from Sunnis. The big picture take away, he says, it that having achieved remarkable success with major issues we now can begin to address “second and third order problems” such as insuring that military forces “stay in their lane” and do not subvert civilian leadership.

***************

There are plenty more. Just read the news.

Won? No, not yet. But looking good.

Firm

quote:

More Chaos and Death in Iraq

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Considering that the  main purpose of the so called "surge" was to provide space and time for the Iraqis to get their shit together politically and make their government work,the ~surge~ is a complete failure.In spite of what politicians like Gen. Petrous have claimed.

True,violence is down but only a republican could say that 10 troops killed a month,instead of twenty killed,is a success.It`s not.

Of course if you flood any area with soldiers and/or build  20 foot high cement walls ,violence will be "reduced" in that particular area.That`s a no-brainer.

We could make Detroit crime free if we flooded it with 50 thousand GIs and walled it in.Whatever.

I find it disingenuous that neo-cons claim the surge is "working" when the stated goals of the surge was to allow the Iraqis more time to form and refine their government.A goal that hasn`t been reached or even approached.


Half the elected officials are boycotting Maliki`s government and the only reason why the Mahdi army isn`t attacking us, is that we`re PAYING them 10 bucks a day, per fighter every day,to stand down.

BTW,paying people to not attack you is not a victory or a war plan.It`s more in the realm of failure and incompetence.

We did our part.The GIs did their part.We gave this every chance and payed dearly w/ our soldiers lives, to give the Iraqis more time.

Time`s up......

quote:

ORIGINAL: pollux

they have years of conditioning to overcome.