You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq
AP Analysis: US Now Winning Iraq War
2008-07-27
By Robert Burns and Robert Reid

The United States is now winning the war that two years ago seemed lost.
The AP says this? The AP?
Robert Burns is a NYT reporter and a pretty sharp cookie. He's had good reporting over the years and every time I see him interviewed on TV he has something interesting to say. I think he saw the results of the surge well before his masters on 42nd street did.
Limited, sometimes sharp fighting and periodic terrorist bombings in Iraq are likely to continue, possibly for years. But the Iraqi government and the U.S. now are able to shift focus from mainly combat to mainly building the fragile beginnings of peace — a transition that many found almost unthinkable as recently as one year ago.

Despite the occasional bursts of violence, Iraq has reached the point where the insurgents, who once controlled whole cities, no longer have the clout to threaten the viability of the central government.

That does not mean the war has ended or that U.S. troops have no role in Iraq. It means the combat phase finally is ending, years past the time when President Bush optimistically declared it had.
No, Bush referred to 'major combat operations', which is different. Fault Bush if you like for missing the turn of events in 2004-05, but don't use irrelevant statements against him.
The new phase focuses on training the Iraqi army and police, restraining the flow of illicit weaponry from Iran, supporting closer links between Baghdad and local governments, pushing the integration of former insurgents into legitimate government jobs and assisting in rebuilding the economy.
Exactly what we should be doing, and what we said we wanted to do from the very beginning. We're three years later than we could have been, but we wouldn't be doing it at all if Senators Obama, Reid, etc. had had their way.
Scattered battles go on, especially against al-Qaida holdouts north of Baghdad. But organized resistance, with the steady drumbeat of bombings, kidnappings, assassinations and ambushes that once rocked the capital daily, has all but ceased.

This amounts to more than a lull in the violence. It reflects a fundamental shift in the outlook for the Sunni minority, which held power under Saddam Hussein. They launched the insurgency five years ago. They now are either sidelined or have switched sides to cooperate with the Americans in return for money and political support.
Posted by:Matt

#31  Again, RADICAL ISLAM > NO US-IRAN WAR + SAVING THE JIHAD + PROTECTING NUCLEARIZING IRAN = shifted the strategic focii to OUTSIDE OF IRAQ, i.e. RUSSIA + CENTRAL ASIA, ETC. While Iran nuclearizes, it will prefer to keep a low profile 2008-2012 [2016] AMAP ALAP - ditto for ISLAMIST MILITANTS-TERRS WHILE RADICAL ISLAM REBUILDS FROM HEAVY MANPOWER + MATERIEL LOSSES SUFFERED IN IRAQ + AFGHANISTAN. Iraq per se is for time being a SUPPORT OR DIVERSIONARY FRONT [Defensive], NOT A PRIMARY OR STRATEGIC FRONT [Offensive]. IOW, RADICAL ISLAM IS HEDGING AND "SPREADING THE ODDS" IN ORDER TO SAVE ITS JIHAD, NUCLEARIZE, AND PRECLUDE DEFEAT.

E.g. TOPIX > USA: WINNING IN IRAQ BUT LOSING THE WAR ON TERROR?; + INTERFAX > LUZHKOV: RUSSIAN BLACK SEAS FLEET SHOULD/MUST NEVER LEAVE SEVASTOPOL. Sevastopol departure is tantamount to RUSSIA LOSING/CEDING ITS SOUTHERN PART TO FOREIGN NATIONS AND INTERESTS [new destabilization + breakup of Russia].

Add to [paraph] RUSSIA FEARS US AMD [Anti-Missle Defense] SHIELD WILL EXPAND BEYOND POLAND, CZECH BORDERS.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2008-07-27 21:24  

#30  I'd also be curious to know what proportion were removed in the US. I think we cleansed most of them by disease, forced migration, and killing. Next time I expect the order to be reversed. Substantially.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2008-07-27 17:21  

#29  tipper, agreed. It didn't happen in Australia. What happened is Aboriginal society rejected mixed race children and these children were taken into care by the state.

However, the facts have to be bent to fit the PC myth and 'the Stolen Generation' was invented.
Posted by: phil_b   2008-07-27 17:13  

#28  Looks like the media-industrial complex is preparing to admit defeat in Iraq.

Their temporary bait-and-switch support for the Afghanistan operation will now end and their defeatist mantra will shift back toward the east, where it was in 2003.
Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy   2008-07-27 16:39  

#27  3dc, there was no such removal,well, at least not in Australia.
Posted by: tipper   2008-07-27 16:30  

#26  Nimble
The Indian wars ended with removal and education of the Indian children
link
abstract:
As a central component of the assimilation agenda in the United States and of absorption plans in Australia, child removal became a systematic government policy toward indigenous peoples in both countries in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Using the rhetoric of protecting and saving indigenous children, reformers and government officials touted child removal as a means to "uplift" and "civilize" indigenous children. Modern-day historians, until very recently, have characterized child removal in similar ways: as a well-intentioned, though ultimately misguided, alternative to warfare and violence against indigenous peoples.

If we turn our attention to the perspectives of the indigenous peoples who confronted this policy, a different view emerges. While outright violence against indigenous peoples in both the United States and Australia did virtually end in the late nineteenth century, efforts by colonizers to pacify and control indigenous populations and to confiscate their lands continued with the removal of indigenous children. Such a policy was hardly a departure from military methods of subjugation; rather, the systematic and forcible removal of their younger generations represented an ongoing assault upon indigenous communities.

I have noticed no such removal, hostage and child education program. Therefore, one must assume it will end in a different manner than it did with American Indians.

Posted by: 3dc   2008-07-27 15:01  

#25  Perhaps he means smallpox and alcoholism, .5MT. ;-)
Posted by: trailing wife    2008-07-27 14:27  

#24  8 more states?
Posted by: .5MT   2008-07-27 13:58  

#23  This is like conquering North America from the Indians. And it's going to end the same way.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2008-07-27 12:34  

#22  Wasn't Robert Burns one of the AP guys with Yon when he discovered the al Qaeda massacre about a year ago? I had mixed feeling about him then - I can't remember, but I think Yon respected him.

So I'll agree with Doctor Steve - Burns knew it long before his masters would print it.
Posted by: Bobby   2008-07-27 12:33  

#21  Because, Lumpy, it isn't a traditional war that has a start, a middle, and an end. It's not like World War II with one side surrendering unconditionally.

This is like the end of a guerilla campaign, much like the Brits successfully fought in Malaysia. It ends rather inconclusively, and you know it's over only because the morgues are no longer full and people are just going about their business.

And it's not over yet. Iraq needs peaceful provincial elections, and they need a peaceful national election to remind Maliki and company that in a democracy, they are replaceable.
Posted by: Steve White   2008-07-27 12:22  

#20  "Why don't I feel like it's a victory?"

Thanks for telling us you're a Leftie, Lumpy.

Of course, we already knew that....
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2008-07-27 11:52  

#19  For most Rantburgers, who care more about our war policy than politics, Obama's trip can be interpretted as flying around the region endorsing our current policies. Now he agrees with McCain that a) any drawdown in Iraq must be success-based and b) we need a 'surge' of sorts in Afghanistan (and the Pak border areas where he's already been fairly hawkish).

My concern is that Obama changes his mind all the time and he does not seem serious about getting Nato to provide any more combat forces in Afghanistan. Plus he's a political hack from the south side of Chicago. But let's appreciate what is happening here.
Posted by: JAB   2008-07-27 11:41  

#18  Don't tell Harry Reid. It'll be our secret...
Posted by: tu3031   2008-07-27 11:07  

#17  Why don't I feel like it's a victory?
Posted by: Lumpy Omomonter3726   2008-07-27 10:57  

#16  The gospel according to AP:

The US is losing the war.

Obama showed up in Baghdad.

US is now winning the war.
Posted by: Pappy   2008-07-27 10:49  

#15  They wouldn't print it if they didn't think it would help Obama in the long run. In their eyes it justifies his 16 month withdrawal plan.
Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC   2008-07-27 10:46  

#14  Waiting for the other foot to drop...

The PC narrative is changing.
Out: we are losing, it's hopeless, and we have to pull the troops out.
In: we are winning, it's over, and we have to pull the troops out. See? Obama was right all along about needing to pull the troops out.

I'd really like to be wrong about this.
Posted by: Bin thinking again   2008-07-27 10:27  

#13  http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y25/mluphoup/pigs_fly.gif
Posted by: Anonymoose   2008-07-27 10:24  

#12  The real FLying Pigs are for when Pelosi, Reid and Obama admit they were wrong about the war, the surge and apologise for their attempts to derail it.
Posted by: OldSpook   2008-07-27 10:23  

#11  That does not mean the war has ended or that U.S. troops have no role in Iraq.

Someone needs to remind the Obamessiah about this.
Posted by: OldSpook   2008-07-27 10:21  

#10  Anyone get a picture or vid?
Thar's pigs flyin out yonder somewhar...
Posted by: logi_cal   2008-07-27 10:04  

#9  And don't forget attributing the success to Queen Nancy and "the war is lost" Ried.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2008-07-27 09:56  

#8  They are laying the base for the major Obama flip-flop in August.
Posted by: DarthVader   2008-07-27 09:15  

#7  Obama was right. Withdraw now.

/sarcasm off.
Posted by: Keystone   2008-07-27 09:05  

#6  But...but...but...what happened to the quagmire?
Posted by: Abu Uluque   2008-07-27 09:00  

#5  This "news" is so late you wonder why they bother.
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2008-07-27 08:43  

#4  Things must be starting to go down hill.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2008-07-27 08:13  

#3  The grizzled combat reporter must have rotated from the bar in Bhagdad to covering the 2nd Coming
Posted by: .5MT   2008-07-27 07:28  

#2  Hmmm... Maybe we should've built a democracy in Yugoslavia. You remember Yugoslavia? Winter Olympics?
Posted by: Bobby   2008-07-27 06:41  

#1  Whaaa? There's plenty of bad news left in Iraq - what, are they too lazy to go looking for it?
Posted by: gromky   2008-07-27 06:13  

00:00