Article

2007-10-28 Iraq

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by lotp 2007-10-28 00:00|| || Front Page|| [9 views ] Top
File under: Iraqi Insurgency

#1 America wasn't "headed for defeat in Iraq," a year ago. Al Qaeda and other Sunni groups were targeting Shiite groups, and only hitting Americans as a side battle. Although the Surge deterred most Sunni attacks, the most significant aspect of Baghdad security in 2007, was the near cleansing of Sunnis from the north Tigris region. Unfortunately, Shiites took much of the southern part of the city as well, leaving the Sunnis with a narrow corridor from the international airport to the river and the Green Zone. In general, Sunnis retreated and consolidated their positions by forming alliances with US regional commands. I always believed that ethnic cleansing was a solution, and that stability would follow. That occurred, and now, arguably, a majority in Baghdad has turned against the militias, which US troops attack at will and without consequence. Al-Sadr is no longer a power in the Iraq Parliament.

Conditions for stability in Iraq began last October when President Bush promised revisions in tactics, and set field policies up for consultation. In that context, the Iraq intervention ceased to be a State Department exercise, and was turned over to field commanders who know how to pacify belligerents.

Posted by McZoid 2007-10-28 03:35|| 2007-10-28 03:35|| Front Page Top

#2 How much more powerful a tool would have been the actual defeat of the United States, the last remaining superpower, at the hands of Al Qaeda In Iraq? How much more dangerous would have been a terrorist movement with bases in an oil-rich Arab country at the heart of al Qaeda's mythical "Caliphate" than al Qaeda was when based in barren, poverty-stricken Afghanistan, a country where Arabs are seen as untrustworthy outsiders?

A pair of questions that democrats and liberals dasn't answer even as they spew such treasonous bullshit as "Betray-us". General Petraeus' ROE changes in Iraq seem to have played a critical role in this success. As McZ notes, wresting operational planning out of State's hands was essential to this turn around. How much else of America's foreign dealings will suddenly blossom once they have been extracted from State's withering embrace? Condoleeza Rice's descent into appeasement and ineffectuality appears to be a microcosmic template for the overall situation at State. So much for the East Coast elite's vision of a New World Order.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-10-28 03:49|| 2007-10-28 03:49|| Front Page Top

#3 We must be prepared for victory.

Posted by Thomas Woof 2007-10-28 04:55|| 2007-10-28 04:55|| Front Page Top

#4 People won't want to hear it, and it wasn't intentional, but I believe the Democractic Congress had a lot to do with victory in Iraq. Their cut and run comments probalby scared the hell out of the Iraqi's who realized they did not have forever to get things together and were forced to stand up. They should have stood up more, but the timing with the surge helped significanty.

The Vietnamese didn't manage to hear the same message and never stood up, not really. The result was that they suddenly found themselves alone and without even monetary support when they needed it. The lesson. You can depend on the Americans but only for so long, in the end you better depend upon yourself.

Posted by rjschwarz 2007-10-28 08:34|| 2007-10-28 08:34|| Front Page Top

#5 The Vietnamese didn't manage to hear the same message and never stood up, not really.

I'm not sure that isn't apples and oranges or fair. The South Vietnamese were doing a fair job of surviving without American troops doing the fighting and did so for 2 years. The donks cut off funding for the ARVN so they hadn't even ammunition to resist the NVA invasion. Given that they wouldn't even get ammunition, what did you expect them to do, Tienamen Square? Sorry, it was a spiteful decision by the donks and one they will have a hard time living down, expecially as they have tried to betray the Iraqis as well.

In Iraq the donks didn't have the power

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2007-10-28 08:40|| 2007-10-28 08:40|| Front Page Top

#6 rjschwarz - where you around back then?

The South Vietnamese repulse one major offensive from the North, with very limited support in the form of air and ground controllers from the US, after the withdraw of the vast bulk of our forces. They fought the fight. Then the Donks in Congress cut off all effective aid. It was the second major offensive which then overpowered the South Vietnamese who lacked the means. It didn't take long for them to grasp they'd been had. So why fight to the last man? For the tens of thousand of Vietnamese who feed the fish of the South China Sea, it wasn't about will, it was about means. The North Vietnamese had no problem from their suppliers [or abettors].

Posted by Procopius2k 2007-10-28 10:48|| 2007-10-28 10:48|| Front Page Top

#7 Here in Orange County California I work every day with people who were standing up, military and civillians, until the U.S. pulled the rug out from underneath them. Kennedy and Kerry and a host of others were eager and ready to bayonet the wounded Viets who were still fighting and doing well enough to have survived. We put the last nail in thier coffin.

Posted by Sgt. D.T. 2007-10-28 12:56|| 2007-10-28 12:56|| Front Page Top

#8 Sheesh. I hope RJS's comments don't represent the the next meme in historical revisionism. Harry Reid will be taking credit for the defeat of al Qaeda like he did the $2mm that Rush raised for the Marines.

Posted by SR-71">SR-71 2007-10-28 15:01|| 2007-10-28 15:01|| Front Page Top

#9 Also, in Nam, we allowed their military, one based on wealth and position because the perks of leadership were many and profitable, to stay organized. Instead, in Iraq, we rebuilt the military so we could place real leaders in high positions, not profiteers. Anytime corruption is supported by the leadership, the effect on the organization is of weakness and disloyalty. If a SVN unit was a good fighting unit, it was almost by accident.

Posted by wxjames 2007-10-28 17:58|| 2007-10-28 17:58|| Front Page Top

#10 "Profiteer" > 'tis why England had and has a historically stronger [albeit rough/imperfect] reputation as a colonial master than France does.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-10-28 21:39|| 2007-10-28 21:39|| Front Page Top

23:42 Alaska Paul
23:34 g(r)omgoru
23:24 Abdominal Snowman
23:16 Abdominal Snowman
23:15 Abdominal Snowman
23:14 ryuge
23:10 ryuge
23:08 Rich W
22:52 Zenster
22:35 Jan
22:31 Red Dawg
22:24 Anonymoose
22:21 trailing wife
22:20 trailing wife
22:13 trailing wife
22:12 Kim Jong-il
22:03 gromky
21:48 Crazyhorse
21:42 Frank G
21:39 JosephMendiola
21:32 JosephMendiola
21:29 OldSpook
21:19 Zenster
21:19 Duh!