Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Sunday, 23rd November 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Salute for soldier who 'saved' Iraq with brains and brawn



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 15 September 2008
DURING the darkest days of his command, General David Petraeus, the US military commander in Iraq, would ponder the words of Ulysses S Grant.



The Union Army general who won the American Civil War was approached by a fellow officer after the disastrous battle of Shiloh and told: "Well, we had a tough day, today."

Grant, chewing on his ubiquitous cigar replied: "Yup. Lick 'em tomo
rrow, though."

When Gen Petraeus was appointed commanding general of United States and international forces in Iraq in 2007, Iraq was on the brink of civil war. But as a result of his controversial "surge" strategy, he will tomorrow leave the nation, though far from stable, with violence reduced to its lowest levels since early 2004.

Next month, the general – whose passion for history has seen him dubbed the warrior-scholar – will take over US Central Command, the headquarters overseeing operations in a swathe of countries across the Middle East and beyond, including Afghanistan.

He will arrive as the most feted American military leader in modern times, with John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, describing him as "one of the great military leaders in American history".

When he testified before Congress on 10 September 2007, a full page advert appeared in the New York Times, paid for by MoveOn, a liberal activist group that carried his photograph and the headline: "General Petraeus or General Betray Us." He was accused of "cooking the books" for George Bush and defending an "unwinnable" war.

Yet today, the consensus is that his decision to draw in 30,000 extra troops to implement a new counter-insurgency strategy has – when combined with other factors – been a success which has helped drag Iraq back from the abyss.

The nation is far from stable, with two million refugees outside the borders, three million more displaced inside the country and car bombs still killing and maiming civilians.

However, it is less violent than last summer. According to US figures, the number of daily attacks has fallen from a peak of 180 in June last year, to around 20 last month. Violent deaths of Iraqi civilians, although difficult to measure, have also dropped steeply, but still account for around 500 per month, at a conservative estimate.

Fatalities among the US military have fallen from 126 in May, 2007, to just 13 in July, 2008, the lowest of any month since the war began in March, 2003.

Gen Petraeus has commanded the war from a lakeside palace built by Saddam Hussein in 1992. Tomorrow, he will hand over his office to his former deputy, Lieutenant-General Raymond Odierno.

At 55, Petraeus, who holds a doctoral degree from Princeton University (his dissertation was The American Military and the Lessons of Vietnam), is exceptionally fit. He is a competitive runner and advocate of one-armed press-ups.

In July, however, he explained that he harboured dark thoughts at times during his command. "Certainly, you do have moments where, if you are honest with yourself in something as difficult as this has been, you occasionally wonder if it will be achievable. But we are in a very different place now than we were a year, a year-and-a-half ago."

While some critics question whether the security gains in Iraq are sustainable and have been matched by enough political progress, Gen Petraeus was pivotal in getting violence down. He moved troops off their big, fortified bases into population centres in Baghdad where al-Qaeda was wreaking havoc with car bombs, and sectarian death squads were roaming the streets at will.

This meant setting up small combat outposts in Baghdad and other places, where US soldiers lived and fought with Iraqi troops. Gen Petraeus also ordered a wave of aggressive operations against insurgents of all stripes.

The initial stages were costly – during the months of April-June 2007 more than 330 US troops were killed, making it the deadliest quarter of the war. But then troop deaths began to fall rapidly as all "surge" forces deployed, increasing numbers of Sunni Arab tribal groups joined the fight against al-Qaeda and the Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr imposed a ceasefire on his Mahdi Army militia.

The battle plan that Gen Petraeus implemented was a classified document called the Joint Campaign Plan, which was divided into four main "lines of operation" – security, politics, diplomacy and economics. The emphasis was on keeping civilians safe in order to isolate violent groups and so create the conditions that would allow the government services to operate.

Gen Petraeus has kept up a gruelling schedule seven days a week, from before dawn until midnight. He made regular visits to the battlefield to speak to troops and to seek feedback on how the war was being fought.

Arriving at a military base in volatile Diyala province last October he went straight into a meeting with junior officers. He wanted their views without the base commander present.

That was part of Gen Petraeus's approach, say aides: encourage the lieutenants and captains who were in the field every day to talk freely, without their immediate superiors around.

Gen Petraeus also showed media savvy in Baghdad and Washington, never getting drawn into over- optimistic predictions about Iraq when statistics showed violence dropping sharply. Even now, he repeatedly says there will be no Iraq "victory dance".

Richard Kohn, a military historian at the University of North Carolina, says Gen Petraeus has the highest public profile and popularity of any US general in years, but cautions that could all change if Iraq unravels or he does not impress in his next job.

The general will face even more difficult challenges, such as the war in Afghanistan and militancy in Pakistan, when he takes on the Central Command job, Mr Kohn says. "He's got an even more complex situation on his hands."

Profile: The man who will take over

LIEUTENANT General Raymond T Odierno, 55, grew up in Rockaway, New Jersey.

He graduated from West Point military academy in June 1976 with a BSc. He later attended North Carolina State University and the Naval War College, receiving Masters degrees in nuclear effects engineering and National Security and Strategy, respectively.

Lt-Gen Odierno was also a senior adviser to the US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice.

He commanded the US Army's 4th Infantry Division during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He returned to Iraq in December 2006 and served for more than a year as the number two US commander for all US-led forces.

During his first tour, he was criticised by some analysts and military officers for harsh tactics in his sector, which included Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit. Lt-Gen Odierno said the area was a hotbed for insurgents which needed robust measures.

In his second tour, he showed a more measured approach, stressing the importance of reconciliation among Iraqi factions and of the Iraqi government providing basic services to the population to reduce the appeal of insurgent groups.





The full article contains 1169 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 14 September 2008 11:40 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Iraq
 
1

Nancy "Stretch" Pelosi,

San Francisco 15/09/2008 00:13:46
I wonder what role Petraeus will have in the 2012 or 2016 Sarah Palin administration?
2

Trams, prams, jams & bams,

15/09/2008 00:29:24
Dunno. What happened to Co-Lynne Powell?
3

Dragonhead,

Dalian,China 15/09/2008 00:45:24
Petraeus is the old fashioned 'soldiers' General'.He listens to those at the sharp end as well as the (promotion hungry)officer corps.
Odierno is just the ticket as well. A well educated gentleman who deals 'robustly' with terrorists and militants.That has been needed for nearly a decade.
Treating them with kid gloves only earns their contempt and allows them the freedom to do as they please. That looks as though it may change.Better late than never one might suppose. Playing by their rules instead of ours should be standard operating procedures.
4

Scullion,

Canada 15/09/2008 01:38:09
#3, what a jingoistic Colonel Blimp you are.
An old-fashioned "general's general" was Julius Caesar who fought with his men on the fornt line and called to them by name to exhort them to greater effort.
The modern general is a mid-level manager who must report a constant stream of successes to his bosses or face the consequences.
Iraq is changing because the Iraqis themselves want it, not due to any ideas from an American military technocrat-Afghanistan shows that.
5

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 15/09/2008 06:56:35
So is the "surge" officially over now?
are all the extra troops who were drafted for this "surge" no longer required in Iraq?
when are they going home then now that everything has turned out roses?
6

57Nomad,

california 15/09/2008 09:02:28
#5 such

such, it was two and a half years from Dunkirk to El Alemein. Would you have been screaming that the Allies were obviously defeated, or that, 'well, we got 'em at Alamein, time to bring the troops back to Britain and get on with the urgent task of bowing out of this war."

I doubt it. For those that simply cannot comprehend what the plan is let me make it plain. We will stay in Iraq, and we will stay in Afghanistan until we have killed or captured all of our enemies. For those who say, 'look you're making more enemies by fighting back," heres the calculus on that. We have more bullets than they have guys even if we have to shoot every single one of them. Despite the snide remarks from the irrelevant couch generals this isn't the first time we've been through this. The Union was soundly trounced in every major battle in the Civil War until Antietam. We got our whole battleship fleet sunk in about 20 minutes at Pearl Harbor. General Wainwright surrendered an entire American Army at Bataan.

Here's the thing. We don't care if people laugh at us. Failure is not considered to be shameful for Americans. And if we get embarrassed, it's not the end of the world. For Americans the only shame is in giving up. Quitting or being known as a quitter is the worst thing that an American can be called. When you fall, you get up, dust yourself off, reflect on the lessons learned, correct your errors and get back after it. One repeats this process until one prevails or dies. Not much more to it than that. We intend to win and we will prosecute the war until we do.

The battle doesn't go to the most brilliant and dashing general, it goes to the toughest guys. Before the Gulf Wars Americans were universally derided as being soaked in crass materialism and had become soft. There isn't a person on earth that believes that now. After Saddam was captured, Chalabi interviewed him and asked him why he didn't fight back. Saddam answered, "would you fight men like thes
7

57Nomad,

15/09/2008 09:04:54
Saddam answered, "would you fight men like these?"

You guy can keep on shooting off your impotent mouths, just keep out of our way, the men have work to do.
8

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 15/09/2008 11:14:17
6

Nomad youre not seriously relegating WW2 down to nothing more than a military surge now are you?
Are you suggesting that Hitlers invasion of Europe was in actually nothing more than a "surge"?
Do you even know what the definition of a military surge is or even its purpose?

"doubt it. For those that simply cannot comprehend what the plan is let me make it plain. We will stay in Iraq, and we will stay in Afghanistan until we have killed or captured all of our enemies."

How on earth will you know when you have accomplish that? when you have them working for you in the military you yourselves are arming and training?
Are you an idiot or is this all some kind of wind up?
Its a SHORT TERM stategy with SHORT TERM goals and aims because surges cannot be sustained over long periods hence the term "surge" if this "surge" goes on any longer then it will become a second invasion by every definition of the word.
How many "surges" were instigated by the US in Vietnam?
9

Jay Kay,

15/09/2008 11:31:12
57Nomad, so what happened in vietnam? you had a vastly superior army, higher technology, gunships, the 5th fleet and you still couldnt beat a bunch of rice growers in paddy fields.

I think you will find that there is growing concern that America will invade any country it likes all in the name of 9/11. You might find you get more support if you pull all your troops back into the confindes of the USA, thats not going to happen however because we all know this war is not about terrorism or Bin Ladden, its simply about controlling the worlds production of Oil.
10

Number 6,

Germany 15/09/2008 11:51:45
Check out Petraus's record in Iraq before he was plucked from obscurity into Stardom as the latest "yes man". It was appalling. He is not considered a leader or indeed , a good soldier by the other Generals in the military. Like Powell, he is a nothing who has been speed promoted into a position of power, from where he is easily controlled.

Powell will never be forgiven by the free world for his lie filled presentation on Iraq's non existent WMD program to the UN, or his cover up of the my - lai massacre.

Petraus is cut from the same cloth.
11

Lynne,

Palm Beach Gardens 15/09/2008 14:39:18
Jay Kay...In Vietnam we won the battles and were winning the war. Unfortunately, the Democratic party, true to form, decided to stop the funding before it was over. That is what they tried to do at least 2 times during this war. They never learn.
All the step up in fighting now is because they (Iran and militancy and insurgents) want to try and change the outcome of our elections. They have made it clear, the want the apoligst and appeaser Obama as President, because he has promised to "bring our troops home".
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.
12

,

15/09/2008 14:46:58
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
13

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 15/09/2008 14:47:55
11

Rewriting history Lynne? that is taking delusion a step too far.
Vietnam was a war you could never have won in a millenia and this is no different.
This suits Israels needs and the needs of those who profit by war and oil.
This is not about winning or losing an armed conflict but on making profits and securing Israel from one of their major antagonists.
Which is why you are so keen on supporting it.
Yes in Vietnam you won all the military battles but lost the most important battle of hearts and minds which ultimately cost you the war and look whats happening here and in Afganistan.
Lessons not learned.
14

Finnking,

Lempäälä 15/09/2008 17:36:38
"Salute for soldier who 'saved' Iraq with brains and brawn"

---Ah, the Scotsman going for those lucrative US adverts, I see!

"Saved Iraq" from whom, exactly?

"Brave"? Well, the US military hasn't fought against a decent military since Viet Nam. They have to starve the place out first(killing 500 000 kids), send in "UN inspection" teams that turn out to be US military spies, bomb the place to smithereens (killing a million or so)and only when it knows there's no chance of a full scale counter attack, it attacks. There's no way it could take on a decent army because the tax payers in the US KNOW that all the talk about "freedom" is bull and wouldn't accept it if the body count (US bodies, that is; "we don't count them") is too high. The real US tax payer knows exactly what the reasons are: the protection of oil.

Look at the way it has handled this situation in Iraq against RPG firing and home made bomb detonating people. A mess.

Over a million massacred, many of them kids, millions displaced, no effective democracy, travel virtually impossible and so many deaths each day. The Iraq Study Group states that there's, "significant under-reporting of the violence in Iraq.". Embedded journalists! Great invention.

The Iraqis will only be free when the US, 'uk' et al force leaves and takes its mercenaries and its corporations with it. The peoples of Iraq will never submit to the (so called) might of the Americans nor will the Afghans.

"Brave"? Yeah, killing civilians is only "brave" when the US does it.

Get the troops out now.
15

Finnking,

Lempäälä 15/09/2008 17:46:10
Brage

"America has sown dragon's teeth in Iraq and Afghanistan and in time America and the world will reap a bitter harvest!"

Very true. But let's be honest, the land was ploughed during the Brit Empire days, made ready for these seeds. It's the same minded folk: western wealth.

IMO we do have to applaud it all as a success; as far as these clowns are concerned, it's a raging sucess:oil price up, weapons sales doing nicely and lots of discontent for future investors to profit out of. Meanwhile, the Chinese simply buy up large chunks of the failing US 'empire', stock up on the dollars and simply, gosh, BUY parts of Africa; you know, as in "not steal", like, "no coups" and, "no bombing people". Imagine! Such a novel way of doing things! I think we should call it Free Market Economics: a hitherto theoretical notion much used by war mongering liars. Buying things on the open market! My God, man, whiteffer next!? Effective health and eduction for all?

LOL
16

,

15/09/2008 19:11:57
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
17

Paddi,

15/09/2008 19:46:15
Adolf had a liking for Ludwig van Beethoven, Richard Wagner and Anton Bruckner, does that make him intellectually 20/20???
18

Finnking,

Lempäälä 15/09/2008 19:55:06
Brage

I wasn't aware of Lang Lang, thanks. I'm from Scotland but found the weather too tropical for me.

Regarding the Chinese: While there's a validity in critism about China in terms of human rights, such critism must be placed within the broader context: a massive rise in living standards for millions and a superb economy, all in a very short time.

The recent negotiations between China and Russia (plus Iran and Venezuela)are interesting, as too the delayed EU and Russian negotiations. Huge trading groups creating links, links that will be of mutual benefit to all concerned. IE it will difficult for the EU to go along with US anti trade policy and general state terrorism with its associated anti Russia/China/anyone doing it themselves policy. Meanwhile, the US economy is going doing the Swanney (sp?), the jails are full, the military bogged down in two viet nam and the people are slowly waking up to the excessive propaganda they are under.
19

Finnking,

Lempäälä 15/09/2008 20:02:58
Paddi

LOL: no, just enjoy music that makes you want to invade Poland.
20

Lynne,

Palm Beach Gardens 15/09/2008 20:28:33
Nancy..#1 ..Petraeus takes command of American Military Forces across the Middle East and Southwest Asia.
21

Paddi,

15/09/2008 21:39:52
In that case, maybe Uncle Joe was a fan of Jean Sibelius?
22

Finnking,

Lempäälä 15/09/2008 22:20:52
I'm sure he wasn't post '38. ;)

Maybe Lenin was.

The SNO, from what i've read, do a very good Sibelius.
23

57Nomad,

15/09/2008 23:47:15
#8 such

such said:

"Nomad youre not seriously relegating WW2 down to nothing more than a military surge now are you?
Are you suggesting that Hitlers invasion of Europe was in actually nothing more than a "surge"?
Do you even know what the definition of a military surge is or even its purpose?"

No, of course I'm not suggesting any such thing, I was exaggerating to make a point, a not uncommon rhetorical device. But first let me thank you for your intelligent and cohesive question. Well put.

What I was saying is this. The US has been criticized for making mistakes in the prosecution of the war. From the study of those errors, the 'surge' was the culmination of the lessons learned from those mistakes. And, without banging heads here, yes, I know what a surge is and I can go one on one on military history with any poster on this forum.

It wasn't the additional American soldiers that comprised the nucleus of the surge. They were what got the headlines. The timing of it coincided with several factors, here are a couple. One is this, the Iraqi army has stood up a number of reliable, well trained and capable cadres. Another is the transforming of the positioning of American troops from concentrating troops in contonments to small community based garrisons within Sadr City itself.

It is important to recall that the focus of the surge was Sadr City. New York is the only city in the US that is as large as Baghdad and is very spread out, a big, big city. The main characters were the Madhi army of Muqtada al-Sadr. He led the only Shi'ite group opposed to the liberation of Iraq because he is closely aligned with the Iranian Shi'a and was anxious to promote their interest in Iraq. It was this group, the Madhi army that was primarily responsible for the terrible violence in Baghdad for the past few years.

Contrary to Goebbels-like propaganda that the Iraqis would like to have their old buddy Saddam back in power, they want to enjoy the fruits of their sa
24

57Nomad,

15/09/2008 23:48:15
#23 contd.

Contrary to Goebbels-like propaganda that the Iraqis would like to have their old buddy Saddam back in power, they want to enjoy the fruits of their sacrifice and live their lives in peace and freedom. What they didn't care to see was the Madhi army attacked Fallujah-like house to house by American troops. The success of the surge was due to the excellent soldierly and disciplined prosecution of the elimination of the Madhi army by Iraqi soldiers. American army units followed the Iraqis and established neighborhood by neighborhood outposts. The residents of Sadr City catching on quickly to what was happening began pouring intelligence into the combined Iraqi/American commands and now Sadr City is firmly on the side of the Iraqi national government, they take well-deserved pride in their national army and great confidence in them because they saw the Madhi army routed, scattered, and defeated by their army right before their eyes.

Then you say, a little less cordially:

"How on earth will you know when you have accomplish that? when you have them working for you in the military you yourselves are arming and training?
Are you an idiot or is this all some kind of wind up?
Its a SHORT TERM stategy with SHORT TERM goals and aims because surges cannot be sustained over long periods hence the term "surge" if this "surge" goes on any longer then it will become a second invasion by every definition of the word."

If this constitutes your interpretation of the word 'invasion' it is curious indeed. Are you implying that that the Iraqi army invaded Iraq?

I'm afraid you are mistaken about this SHORT TERM business. Where did you come up with that? It has nothing to do with the word "surge" which you have implied you know something about. Surge is a military term of art that was mistakenly appropriated by the Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Harry 'we lost the war' Reid. Like other terms of art the popular term is not reflective of its true or o
25

57Nomad,

15/09/2008 23:51:48
Like other terms of art the popular usage is not reflective of its true or original, or even current usage. The Army, Navy, and Air Force all use the term surge but with subtle differences reflecting the requirements of each branch. In general, 'surge' in the military sense refers to logistics. The Army's surge capability refers to the placement of supplies and support for a rapid increase in troops. In the Navy it refers to sea lift, docking, loading and unloading capacity, etc., in the Air Force it refers to runway capacity, repair and refurbishing facilities, air traffic control and the like.

The current use of the word is inaccurate and so there is little point in debating the fine points of a mistaken usage. As far as 'short term' goes, your use of it implies that you can see the future. You have no idea whatsoever what is going to happen to yourself in the next month, so how can you foresee events, the details of which you are not privy, to a military campaign thousand of miles from you. Wishful thinking perhaps?
26

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 16/09/2008 10:24:35
23 24 25

You cant be serious? do you honestly believe this so called directed focused "surge" is going to affect this war in any meaningful way at all?
The ENTIRE country is in flames people are being murdered by both sides EVERY SINGLE DAY.
"Insurgents" have infiltrated the puppet government the police and the paramilitaries being trained by the coalition ACROSS THE ENTIRE COUNTRY IN EVERY REGION CITY TOWN AND VILLAGE. And you think this "focused surge" is going to make all that go away?
Do you honestly think this "focused surge" is going to acheive anything other than short political propaganda gains in the area of the "focused surge"? and then only for the duration of that "focused surge".

All of it is simply a politcal propaganda tool in order for GWB to turn round just before he f*cks off out of the arena and say well things were improving before I left.

Have a word with yersell.

So tell me Nomad do you think there are more or less "insurgents" in the country now than before the surge began?
27

57Nomad,

california 17/09/2008 13:59:24
#26 such

In post #8, such said the following:

"Do you even know what the definition of a military surge is or even its purpose?"

Here Such implies that he knows what a 'surge' is and I don't. It is now clear from his post #26 he has abandon this line on inquiry since it's obvious I know what a 'surge' is and that Suchadufus has no idea whatsoever.

Look, sport, when you come on the Scotsman forum and reveal your lack of understanding of the way the military works by making stupid and irrelevant comments, it disappoints everyone that is looking at this forum for an intelligent exchange of ideas.

Since you are the guy who said, "Do you even know what the definition of a military surge is or even its purpose?" and made that statement a cornerstone of your reason for referring to me as an "idiot" aren't you just a little embarrassed that you are the one that doesn't have the vaguest what 'surge' means and that you have placed yourself in the unpleasant position, therefore, of calling yourself an idiot.

You don't have a clue what the military definition of surge is do you? Not even a glimmer. You are a self-defined idiot. Then there is this, "The ENTIRE country is in flames people are being murdered by both sides EVERY SINGLE DAY." Pardon me? The entire country is in flames? Are you resorting to a rhetorical flourish perhaps? I live in Southern California I know what it looks like when the 'whole country is in flames.' The only thing going on in Iraq right now is the occasional suicide bomber blowing up ice cream parlors. This is your idea of a whole country going up in flames?

Then you say, ""Insurgents" have infiltrated the puppet government the police and the paramilitaries being trained by the coalition ACROSS THE ENTIRE COUNTRY IN EVERY REGION CITY TOWN AND VILLAGE." Is that so?


RAMADI, Iraq (AFP) - The US military will hand over security control of Anbar, once the most explosive battlefield in Iraq, to local forces on Monday as I
28

57Nomad,

17/09/2008 14:00:25
#27 contd.

RAMADI, Iraq (AFP) - The US military will hand over security control of Anbar, once the most explosive battlefield in Iraq, to local forces on Monday as Iraqi Sunnis begin observing the holy month of Ramadan.

Here is the link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080901/wl_mideast_afp/iraqunrestusanbar_080901021324

Now this is a bold statement, both in intent and the unfortunate overuse of caps. When you do that it gives the impression to the reader that your argument isn't strong enough to stand on its own and has to be shouted. It adds nothing to the validity of your statement to use caps so much, in fact it irritates people. Here is a sincere suggestion, instead of using CAPS, make your point and then cite your sources. That's how the grown-ups do it. Even Wally cites his sources no matter how bizarre those sources. You have called me names, made outrageous and ignorant claims and you have not cited one single source. Not one. Why is that? Could it be that you really have no idea of what you are talking about? Now, once again, cite the sources for your claims or state clearly that you are just voicing your opinion. There's nothing wrong with that, but you must do one or the other or no one will pay any attention to you. I believe you are a good hearted guy with deeply held and passionate beliefs, and I would enjoy debating you on any point you care to make. But in order to do that it's necessary to know what you base those beliefs on, reliable sources or your own opinion.



Here you say:

"So tell me Nomad do you think there are more or less "insurgents" in the country now than before the surge began?"

I will answer this question with the following caveat. Suchadufus has demonstrated that he has no idea what a 'surge' is, any question he asks in which the word surge is mentioned, you can replace with any noun you care to and it will make just as much sense. "Do you think there are more or less insurgents since the fish began, since
29

57Nomad,

17/09/2008 14:02:00
#28

I will answer this question with the following caveat. Suchadufus has demonstrated that he has no idea what a 'surge' is, any question he asks in which the word surge is mentioned, you can replace with any noun you care to and it will make just as much sense. "Do you think there are more or less insurgents since the fish began, since the spark plugs began, since grannys false teeth began." Absurd is absurd and there is no way to answer a psuedo-question.

However if we accept, for the moment, what Suchadufus mistaken concept of surge means, then the question in a resounding, of course there are fewer left. Such, do you seriously believe that the violence in Iraq is a popular uprising against the American presence in Iraq? It seems that you do. You are completely wrong. The former hotbed of the 'insurgency' was Anbar Provence. The Iraqi government has complete control of Anbar and the Sunnis and Shi'ites are both cooperating with the American army. AQ in Iraq is defeated. Muqtada al-Sadr's Madhi army was the other source of violence. The surge, as you mistakenly refer to it, was conducted by Iraqi troops. The people who live in Sadr City cooperated with the government troops, ratted out the Madhis on a massive scale and Sadr city is now a peaceful and happy place now that your friends the car bombers have been annihilated the only violence in the country is caused by Iranian trained suicide bombers. These suicide bombers are killing Iraqis. Do you thing the Iraqis are blaming the Americans for that? They are not. They are blaming the "Persians." For the historically impaired such as you, Such, the Persians (Iranians) are the historical and bitter enemies of the Arabs. They hate each other.

Your posts have a disturbing hysterical tone to them that is mixed with a bewildering ignorance of anything you are talking about. Look here, Such, you are a total lightweight and if you want to mix it up with the big boys you are going to have to come a little stron
30

57Nomad,

17/09/2008 14:02:46
stronger.
31

,

17/09/2008 17:33:16
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
32

57Nomad,

california 24/09/2008 06:31:22
#4 scully

scully said:

"An old-fashioned "general's general" was Julius Caesar who fought with his men on the fornt line and called to them by name to exhort them to greater effort.
Iraq is changing because the Iraqis themselves want it, not due to any ideas from an American military technocrat-Afghanistan shows that.

The last English King to lead his men into battle (at least on English soil) was Richard III. W.S. Churchill was a tough cat and had to be talked out of personally leading the Normandy invasion. Generals are rated on performance. General Patreus has done a remarkable job.

You say Iraq is changing because the Iraqis want it not because we want it? This is your point? If you want to make a comparative case it's more impressive if your comparison examples are mutually exclusive. The US wanting change in Iraq does not exclude Iraq changing because Iraqis want it. It's called working together for a better tomorrow!

You are making a point by comparing Afghanistan to Iraq. I see, now that Bush and Patreus have Iraq under control and getting better every day, Iraq is going to get worse because of what is happening in Afghanistan? The war is over in Iraq, and it won't last much longer in Afghanistan. Talk about a high turn-over rate of upper level Taleban management! Wow. No, they are not supported by the Afghan people because, by and large they are foreigners and are seen as such by the Afghanis.

If McCain is elected Pakistan will acknowledge that our resolve is strong and they will throw the weight of their armed forces against AQ and other terrorist organizations in their region. If Obama is elected the Pakistanis will believe that the US has lost it's resolve and that it intends to leave the area to it's own devices. Pakistan will then cut a deal with the terrorists and that is going to lead to real problems. However, I think that Barak's chances of winning are slim. It could happen, but McCain will win. The undecided or inde
33

57Nomad,

24/09/2008 06:33:19
The undecided or independent voters are a whopping 27% of the electorate. How these voters fall will determine the winner on election day.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.