Troops In Iraq To Be Withdrawn Within a Year

[medusala]

well, actually you did, until the Japs bombed Pearl Harbour and Hitler declared war on the US a couple of days later.

They werent in any great hurry in WW1 either.

 

[Moo]

Apparently the only folks talking about Civil War are western newspapers! No Shiite or Sunni folks, and most definately not the Kurds, are preparing for any 'civil' war... Indeed, those talking Civil War are those outside not inside Iraq...


I tend to listen more to Armed Forces reportage on the Iraq situation as they are much closer to situation than media in hotels or outside the nation. For this reason, I get a different perspective than the leftist media.

Funnily enough ITN - I get my info from Iraqis.

Who you gonna believe?

 

[KissStephanie]

You only need to look at this to know that the US and allies are making progress. No doubt they have done a great job so far, leaving too early could undo all that good work though.

Good to hear someone in here congratulating the troops..we dont hear it enough.

Look at what? At the web site of Republican congressman Steve King of Iowa? In that case, what about this from yesterday then?

Reuters: Iran and al-Qaeda Benefit From US in Iraq: Congressman

Since the bombing of the mosque it was reported in the Washington Post on the 28th of February that 1300 Iraqi's had been killed in that time alone from sectarian violence. The total surely has grown since then too, so how could you possibly think that things are progressing well? A civil war in Iraq was the worst possible outcome, yet you have said that leaving would undo all of the good work done? What are you smoking? Or is it the halllucination tea that the Bush administration drinks? If the troops are removed within 12 months, it will be a 'cut and run,' because leaving Iraq in a stable state will not occur in my opinion, and even if it did, it would take a bloody lot longer than 12 months.

"BAGHDAD, Feb. 27 -- Grisly attacks and other sectarian violence unleashed by last week's bombing of a Shiite Muslim shrine have killed more than 1,300 Iraqis, making the past few days the deadliest of the war outside of major U.S. offensives, according to Baghdad's main morgue. The toll was more than three times higher than the figure previously reported by the U.S. military and the news media.

Hundreds of unclaimed dead lay at the morgue at midday Monday -- blood-caked men who had been shot, knifed, garroted or apparently suffocated by the plastic bags still over their heads. Many of the bodies were sprawled with their hands still bound -- and many of them had wound up at the morgue after what their families said was their abduction by the Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr."

Washington Post; 28th February 06 - Toll in Iraq's Deadly Surge: 1,300 Morgue Count Eclipses Other Tallies Since Shrine Attack

"U.S. Officials Deny Violence Has Risen to That Level, but ABC News Analysts See a 'Serious Lack of Realism'

By JAKE TAPPER

BAGHDAD, March 5, 2006 — As Pentagon generals offered optimistic assessments that the sectarian violence in Iraq had dissipated this weekend, other military experts told ABC News that Sunni and Shiite groups in Iraq already are engaged in a civil war, and that the Iraqi government and U.S. military had better accept that fact and adapt accordingly.

"We're in a civil war now; it's just that not everybody's joined in," said retired Army Maj. Gen. William L. Nash, a former military commander in Bosnia-Herzegovina. "The failure to understand that the civil war is already taking place, just not necessarily at the maximum level, means that our counter measures are inadequate and therefore dangerous to our long-term interest."

ABC News; 5th March 06 - Expert on Iraq: 'We're In a Civil War'

"Poll Also Finds Growing Doubt About Bush

By Richard Morin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 7, 2006; Page A03

An overwhelming majority of Americans believe that fighting between Sunni and Shiite Muslims in Iraq will lead to civil war, and half say the United States should begin withdrawing its forces from that violence-torn country, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The survey found that 80 percent believe that recent sectarian violence makes civil war in Iraq likely, and more than a third say such a conflict is "very likely" to occur. These expectations extend beyond party lines: More than seven in 10 Republicans and eight in 10 Democrats and political independents say they believe such a conflict is coming."

Washington Post; 7th March 06 - Majority in U.S. Fear Iraq Civil War

You need to get a grip on reality because the mess in Iraq is overwhelming.

 

[- PC -]

You need to get a grip on reality because the mess in Iraq is overwhelming.

To be fair to CS he has acknowledged this. All he is saying his solution is to keep the troops there until the mess is sorted, not to withdraw them.

I think withdrawing the troops will take away a lot of the ammunition...certainly keep advisors etc in the 12 months train troops and police and deal effectively with the problem before leaving.

 

[skipper kelly]

So lets see. OP states that the wise thing to do would be to leave Iraq in 12 months, an option which is proposed by British authorities but in your words "Not surprisingly these reporst are disputed by Washington...."

Both the Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Mirror in Britain have reported today that the troops in Iraq will be withdrawn within 12 months, but with a commitment of up to 10 years in Afghanistan, according to a senior defence source. Not surprisingly, these reports are being disputed by Washington for a number of reasons, but it seems to me to be the wise option to the situation in Iraq, particularly following two weeks of sectarian bloodshed.

but then you disagree with the "wise option"

If the troops are removed within 12 months, it will be a 'cut and run,' because leaving Iraq in a stable state will not occur in my opinion, and even if it did, it would take a bloody lot longer than 12 months.

So now you disagree with what you called the wise option.The planned pull-out from Iraq follows the acceptance by London and Washington that the presence of the coalition, mainly composed of British and US troops, is now seen as the main obstacle to peace.

So is it surprising or not that Washington would disagree with the original reports?

Or do you agree with the Bush Government in this instance?

 

[- PC -]

So lets see. OP states that the wise thing to do would be to leave Iraq in 12 months, an option which is proposed by British authorities but in your words "Not surprisingly these reporst are disputed by Washington...."




but then you disagree with the "wise option"


So now you disagree with what you called the wise option.The planned pull-out from Iraq follows the acceptance by London and Washington that the presence of the coalition, mainly composed of British and US troops, is now seen as the main obstacle to peace.

So is it surprising or not that Washington would disagree with the original reports?

Or do you agree with the Bush Government in this instance?

Gee skip now your gonna cop it

 

[camsmith]

Look at what? At the web site of Republican congressman Steve King of Iowa? In that case, what about this from yesterday then?

The website must have changed, it had up a letter sent from Mayor Najim Abdullah al Jabouri from the City of Tall Afar in Iraq to General Casey telling him how grateful they were of the US soldiers.

Ive searched for it again: Try this (PDF)

Or if that doesn't work this..


Some of the letter:

Our city was the main base of operations for Abu Mousab Al Zarqawi. The city was completely held hostage in the hands of his henchmen. Our schools, governmental services, businesses and offices were closed. Our streets were silent, and no one dared to walk them. Our people were barricaded in their homes out of fear; death awaited them around every corner. Terrorists occupied and controlled the only hospital in the city. Their savagery reached such a level that they stuffed the corpses of children with explosives and tossed them into the streets in order to kill grieving parents attempting to retrieve the bodies of their young. This was the situation of our city until God prepared and delivered unto them the courageous soldiers of the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment, who liberated this city, ridding it of Zarqawi’s followers after harsh fighting, killing many terrorists, and forcing the remaining butchers to flee the city like rats to the surrounding areas, where the bravery of other 3d ACR soldiers in Sinjar, Rabiah, Zumar and Avgani finally destroyed them.

I have met many soldiers of the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment; they are not only courageous men and women, but avenging angels sent by The God Himself to fight the evil of terrorism.

Reuters: Iran and al-Qaeda Benefit From US in Iraq: Congressman

Ok then? Murtha giving his opinion based on nothing.. and???

I did pick up this though "characterized the sectarian strife between Iraq's Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims as a civil war that must be settled internally"

If foxnews had said that exact line, im sure someone would have already started a thread on it!

If the troops are removed within 12 months, it will be a 'cut and run,' because leaving Iraq in a stable state will not occur in my opinion, and even if it did, it would take a bloody lot longer than 12 months.

Which is why they must stay for as long as Iraq wants them, and aslong as people like Commander Casey say they are needed. It is useless to say say they will withdraw in 12 months, 6 months, 2 years etc.. because they said they will only pull troops out when Iraq becomes stable, and no-one knows when that is.

You need to get a grip on reality because the mess in Iraq is overwhelming.

Although i dont think it is an overwhelming 'mess' i cant understand why you would want troops out if it is in a mess. Wouldn't this the most important time to have US troops in Iraq.

 

[dan warna]

lmfao

ITN I don't know what your game is, but you are fair dinkum the worst poster on this board.

You've even got medusala against you and he's probably one of the people I argue with the most.

You are without a doubt the best p155 taker on the board because if you are serious, you are a moron of the highest order.

 

[KissStephanie]

Afghanistan
-Taliban defeated
-Al Qaeda defeated
-Elements of Al Qaeda on border being combatted now
-Order restored to country; internal democratic elections

Taliban defeated? Someone forgot to tell them

Sunday 5th of March 2006..... following attacks by hundreds of militants, 50 pro-Taliban militants and five soldiers have been killed in fierce fighting in Pakistan's troubled North Waziristan tribal region near the Afghan border. Interior Minister Aftab Ahmad Khan Sherpaom described those killed as "local Taliban".

Al Qaeda Defeated? ....

(Reuters) --Donald Rumsfeld ...... The United States lags dangerously behind al Qaeda and other enemies in getting out information in the digital media age and must update its old-fashioned methods, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Friday 17th of Feb 2006.

Also Friday 17th of Feb 2006 according to Peter Clarke (British head of the Metropolitan Police's anti-terrorist branch) .....'We are still learning about the nature of the Al Qaeda threat and how to deal with it....and anyone who bleieves that the war against them would be won imminently is hopelessly optimistic'.

Mmmmmmm ITN - does Rummy and the head of the British anti-terrorist unit count as credible? or are they just behind on renting the 'We Won - George Bush DVD's'?

Most of what you said in that post ITN has been responded to already, but I would just like to add this because for some reason you seem to think that Afghanistan is a "mission accomplished," and this is even from Fox News last week, so that you may give it some credibility. There is still a lot of work to do there...

"At the Senate hearing, Lt. Gen. Michael Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency; Defense Intelligence Agency, painted a similarly stark picture of Afghanistan. While the government has made progress in disarming private militias, Maples said, his agency estimates that violence from the Taliban and other anti-coalition groups in Afghanistan increased 20 percent last year.

"Insurgents now represent a greater threat to the expansion of Afghan government authority than at any point since late 2001, and will be active this spring," Maples said in his written statement. Afghan insurgents increased their suicide attacks almost fourfold and more than doubled their use of improvised explosive devices, he said."

Negroponte: Iraq Civil War Would Be 'Catastrophic'

"The day after his claim about no one anticipating the failure of the levees, at a time when the federal response was still a chaotic and ineffectual mess, Bush uttered the immortal line to his foundering FEMA director: "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." Did he really believe that?

A chief executive who isolates himself from bad news is one thing. A chief executive who hears bad news, in detail, and then plays it back as "heck of a job" is something else.

Is there a pattern here? President Bush surely sees, as we all see, that Iraq is in danger of falling into the abyss of sectarian civil war. He must realize that he got bad advice and tried to occupy the country with too few troops, making calamitous mistakes along the way. He surely sees the continuing violence in Afghanistan as the Taliban tries to regroup across the border in Pakistan, where Osama bin Laden is thought to be hiding.

But he doesn't seem to really grapple with the bad news from the multifront "war on terrorism" he has launched, preferring to acknowledge only the spread of democratic institutions. Some in the administration are now calling it "the long war," which indicates no end in sight.

Oh, and health authorities agree that it's just a matter of time before the avian flu pandemic reaches U.S. shores. The administration says the government is prepared to provide all necessary help to local officials. Be very afraid."

Seattle Times; 7th March 06: Be Afraid - Be Very Afraid

 

[Richo83]

Sorry... your glasses failed...

Afghanistan
-Taliban defeated
-Al Qaeda defeated
-Elements of Al Qaeda on border being combatted now
-Order restored to country; internal democratic elections

Iraq
-Saddam Hussein captured
-Bath Army/Republican Guard defeated
-Order restored in nation; democratic elections
-Utilities being restored (schools being opened)
-Insurgent terrorists still vying for power; sectarian violence onging

Worldwide
-Al Qaeda cells identified; arrests made
-Identified terror leaders/followers moved to Gitmo
-Terror Financial assets frozen worldwide
-Coalition of nations fighting terror cells
-Former terror-sponsoring nations cooperating; i.e.,Qadhafui/Libya

There are still Taliban and Al-Qaeda factions in Afghanistan orchestrating terrorist attacks. Taliban may of lost political power, yet they have not been defeated .

Al-Qaeda has been combatted on border? Then why is there Al-Qaeda operatives passing through Pakistan into Afghanistan (and vice versa)?

Order? Afghanistan? Do you even know where or what Afghanistan is? The country has still not controlled all the terrorist factions. Clearly not stable.

Hussein has been captured. Duh. Army replaced by insurgents and terrorists, civil war exists (Order?) services such as oil are still in limbo, constantly a source of terrorist attacks. Insurgent terrorists still vying for power; sectarian violence onging your right there.

Some of Al-Qaeda facets have been found, not all. Many of Al-Qaeda's operations have been scattered rather than stopped. OSB and Zakawi are not in Gitmo, and why not?

Terrorist cells still maintain a steady flow of funds to carry out their attacks. You call it a co-alition, yet it's hardly a coalition.

Is that the Lybia that contains a dictator that once had biological weapons?

 

[dan warna]

ITN is either fishing or a zealot either way there is no point in dealing with a person like that.

 

[camsmith]

You dont believe in freedom of speech dan?

 

[Katthawk]

When do the locals establish and democratize their own circumstances?

How long does it take?

How much help and what help are they asking for?

Ooh there are a few demon questions there.

Should we educate them in our military ways in order to then be used against us?

 

[IntheNet]

I get my info from Iraqis.

How? Let me know how you get "info from Iraqis"? Is it filtered though a biased source or delivered to you first hand?

As I said, I get my information from the source, the U.S. Military, who is on the ground and observing events first hand... no Civil War.... but the biased liberal leftist network news are saying one is on!

Let me know how you get news direct from Iraqis...

 

[dan warna]

How? Let me know how you get "info from Iraqis"? Is it filtered though a biased source or delivered to you first hand?

As I said, I get my information from the source, the U.S. Military, who is on the ground and observing events first hand... no Civil War.... but the biased liberal leftist network news are saying one is on!

Let me know how you get news direct from Iraqis...

yup same source that denied the use of white phosphorus till the bodies were dug up
same source that got sprung telling porkie pies about Jesicca whatshername
same source that got sprung when their ' civilian contractors' turned out to be ex seals and ranger mercenaries armed to the teeth.

yeah reliable source!!! NOT, lol

 

[Moo]

How? Let me know how you get "info from Iraqis"? Is it filtered though a biased source or delivered to you first hand?

As I said, I get my information from the source, the U.S. Military, who is on the ground and observing events first hand... no Civil War.... but the biased liberal leftist network news are saying one is on!

Let me know how you get news direct from Iraqis...

Ummmmmm I talk to the Iraqis at work, I have dinner and smoke shisha with Iraqi friends (including an Iraqi Engineer doing reconstruction back in Iraq) and for the last half of 2005 I lived in a compound with about a dozen Iraqis.

Is this first hand enough or do I need to parachute into Tikrit with a handycam?

It depends on your definition - most I talk to say if the US leave it will be an absolute disaster, if they stay it will be a disaster.

 

[IntheNet]

Ummmmmm I talk to the Iraqis at work, I have dinner and smoke shisha with Iraqi friends (including an Iraqi Engineer doing reconstruction back in Iraq) and for the last half of 2005 I lived in a compound with about a dozen Iraqis.

Okay Moo...So let us know whether your Iraqi friends would rather return to the harsh conditions under Saddam Hussein or the democratic freedoms in their country today.

Ask them what they would would prefer? Also ask them if they plan to volunteer for police duty or serve as a security guard in their nation or otherwise hold a stake in their own future?

Or are these ex-patriots you are speaking to? Former Iraqis with no intention of returning???

 

[London Dave]

Let me know how you get news direct from Iraqis...

I have some Iraqi expats as (near) neighbours, 2 doors down. They email/phone their relatives, who are in Baghdad. They have, from what they tell me, a slightly different than the US military on some things.

A good friend of mine, an officer in the US army is just back home from 13 months in Iraq. The numerous emails sent over the 13 months from where he was stationed (Sadr City) told a slightly different tale to some of the 'news' emanating from other sources, US military included. I'll be visiting him in the US over Easter. It will be interesting to hear his views on the situation in person. One of the few reasons I think that Iraq may end up OK at the end of the day is guys like him are there.

 

[Moo]

Okay Moo...So let us know whether your Iraqi friends would rather return to the harsh conditions under Saddam Hussein or the democratic freedoms in their country today.

Ask them what they would would prefer? Also ask them if they plan to volunteer for police duty or serve as a security guard in their nation or otherwise hold a stake in their own future?

Or are these ex-patriots you are speaking to? Former Iraqis with no intention of returning???

They all have differing opinions (OK no shock there) and also hold differing views to myself. They will all have to return, as they are no hope of getting a visa here - ironically the only one who I know will definetly not end up in Iraq is the Engineer who is currently in Iraq as he is married to a US citizen. Most would prefer to remain in another country but you dont get that choice.

Saddam ousted - democratic freedom ...all would say this is a good thing. There is general concern about the lack of a strong candidate.

Most (not all) will temper this by saying that lawlessness is the most dangerous issue in Iraq at the moment, and this wasnt an issue before. Inhouse terrorism is also a factor now that did not exist.

The most suprising factor is the general harmony that seemed to exist between most Shia and Sunni's.

Not that I have asked, but I would doubt any of them will be joining the security forces soon ...primarily because the whole situation is screwed up and they aint dumb.

Should the US go -they are overwhelmingly no (I think this is different to a lot of polls I have seen).
Should the US have assisted overthrow Saddy after GW1 ...they think so
Is there a clear resolution path - no

 

[medusala]

.

A good friend of mine, an officer in the US army is just back home from 13 months in Iraq. The numerous emails sent over the 13 months from where he was stationed (Sadr City) told a slightly different tale to some of the 'news' emanating from other sources, US military included.

The FT reviewed a book the other day by a US soldier and talked about how the reports coming out from the embedded journos were a complete load of crxp. Tried to find it at bookshop but didnt have it.

 

[IntheNet]

I have some Iraqi expats as (near) neighbours, 2 doors down. They email/phone their relatives, who are in Baghdad. They have, from what they tell me, a slightly different than the US military on some things.

A good friend of mine, an officer in the US army is just back home from 13 months in Iraq. The numerous emails sent over the 13 months from where he was stationed (Sadr City) told a slightly different tale to some of the 'news' emanating from other sources, US military included. I'll be visiting him in the US over Easter. It will be interesting to hear his views on the situation in person. One of the few reasons I think that Iraq may end up OK at the end of the day is guys like him are there.

Nice post. Thanks. I feel the same. I do feel though that the news coming fom the military is far more accurate than that coming from the media at large...

 

[Moo]

Nice post. Thanks. I feel the same. I do feel though that the news coming fom the military is far more accurate than that coming from the media at large...

ITN - not trying top be a pain in the arse, sorry ass but LD said ...

told a slightly different tale to some of the 'news' emanating from other sources, US military included

You actually dont agree with him.

 

[IntheNet]

ITN - not trying top be a pain in the arse...

Moo...my earlier point was that the liberal leftist media is giving a completely different spin on what is happening in Iraq, different than what is being by either the U.S. military or the Iraqis. I know he was slightly contesting the miliary's view...

As I said, I get my information from the source, the U.S. Military, who is on the ground and observing events first hand... no Civil War.... but the biased liberal leftist network news are saying one is on!

London Dave's post about ex-pats confirms this thesis; I would be willing to bet when he speaks to his Iraqi friends the news will be closer to the U.S. military's view than the world media at large about what is really happening in Iraq...

An example of what I mean is being reported on right now:
Rumsfeld: Situation in Iraq 'exaggerated' by media
Tuesday, March 7, 2006; Posted: 3:11 p.m. EST (20:11 GMT)
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/03/07/rumsfeld.iraq/index.html
U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said he doesn't believe Iraq is in a civil war.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- "U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged Tuesday the potential for civil war in Iraq but slammed the media for "exaggerated" reports about the security situation following recent violence between religious factions."

I agree!!!!

 

[London Dave]

Nice post. Thanks. I feel the same. I do feel though that the news coming fom the military is far more accurate than that coming from the media at large...

I wouldn't draw the conclusion from my post that news coming from 'the military' is more accurate. I said it differs in some instances from what my friend in the US military emailed me, and what the Iraqi's up my street tell me. As they can differ from what one reads in the press. Who to believe? Beats me, but I'd at least like to know a few first hand accounts whilst reading the news, both military and commercial.

A far as the Iraqi's up my street go,they were/are over the moon Saddam was removed, but I wouldn't say they are over enthused with how the changeover has been handled. As far as being closer to the US military's POV, I really couldn't say, it's just their view. not sure of the official view oft the US military. The public view, it it's that of Rumsfeld, isn't one they seem to agree with 100%. I suppose it's a bit different if the next bomb that goes off kills your niece, or brother etc. The more one talks to them, the more one realises what a complex place it is.

 

[- PC -]

Moo...my earlier point was that the liberal leftist media is giving a completely different spin on what is happening in Iraq,


An example of what I mean is being reported on right now:
Rumsfeld: Situation in Iraq 'exaggerated' by media
Tuesday, March 7, 2006; Posted: 3:11 p.m. EST (20:11 GMT)
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/03/07/rumsfeld.iraq/index.html
U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said he doesn't believe Iraq is in a civil war.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- "U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged Tuesday the potential for civil war in Iraq but slammed the media for "exaggerated" reports about the security situation following recent violence between religious factions."

I agree!!!!

So you think its ok to quote'' liberal leftist media'' when it suits?