quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
Didn't McArthur (during the Korean War) say something to the effect that we didn't "...retreat. We advanced in retrograde"?

He also said "In war, there is no substitute for victory".With that thinking,no wonder he was not wanted by his President, Truman. That kind of talk would not go down well with the current President. It's embarrassing. The current President has had to redefine 'victory' before,semble,avoiding the word altogether.

In saying anything such as "advanced in retrograde" the General may have been talking sarcastically and in frustration. After all, he had a constant battle with Truman because he wanted to take bold action for victory, including attacking the Chinese, which Truman would not countenance.

'The prevailing verdict on the Petraeus-Crocker show is that it accomplished little beyond certifying President Bush’s intention to kick the can to January 2009 so that the helicopters will vacate the Green Zone on the next president’s watch. That’s true, but by week’s end, I became more convinced than ever that in January we’ll have a new policy that includes serious withdrawals and serious conversations with Mr. Maliki’s pals in Iran, even if John McCain becomes president.' The Petraeus-Crocker Show Gets the Hook

'“There is a parallel to Tet here,” says military historian Jack Radey. “’We have won the war, violence is down, the surge works’ [the U.S. told itself], and then Kaboom! The Green Zone is taking incoming.”' Basra: Echoes of Vietnam

Pentagon institute calls Iraq war 'a major debacle' with outcome 'in doubt'

'For many analysts
(including this one), Iraq remains a “must win,” but for many others,
despite the obvious progress under General David Petraeus and the
surge, it now looks like a “can’t win.”..

...The central finding of this study is
that U.S. efforts in Iraq were hobbled by a set of faulty assumptions, a
flawed planning effort, and a continuing inability to create security conditions
in Iraq that could have fostered meaningful advances in stabilization,
reconstruction, and governance.' www.ndu.edu

quote:

Attacks by insurgents and rival sectarian militias have fallen up to 80 percent in Baghdad and concrete blast walls that divide the capital could soon be removed, a senior Iraqi military official said on Saturday (Feb 16)

'...Sadrist leaders on Friday urged the government to stop erecting concrete walls in Sadr City and other Shiite neighborhoods.

American commanders hope that a wall along the southern edge of Sadr City will effectively cut off insurgents' ability to move freely and choke the flow of weapons into the neighborhood. Workers began erecting the tall barrier wall in the district on Tuesday...' www.nytimes.com

'Iraq, it seems, is surging towards Gaza...

...Mimicking Israel is a recipe for failure. Martin Van Creveld, an Israeli military historian who had lectured U.S. military officials on Israeli military strategy in late 2003, warned in an Associated Press article (December 12, 2003) that just as Israel had been unsuccessful in eliminating militant groups and suicide bombers, the United States cannot expect to be victorious in Iraq. "The Americans are coming here to try to mimic all kinds of techniques, but it's not going to do them any good," he reportedly warned. "I don't see how on earth they (the U.S.) can win. I think this is going to end the same way Vietnam did. They are going to flee the country hanging on the strings of helicopters."' www.fpif.org

'Iraq’s largest Sunni bloc has agreed to return to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s cabinet after a boycott of nearly a year, several Sunni leaders said Thursday. They cited a recently passed amnesty law and the government’s crackdown on Shiite militias as reasons for the move...' Top Sunni Bloc Is Set to Rejoin Cabinet in Iraq

More Sunni/Shia (and Kurd) coooperation:

'About 50 leaders representing a variety of Iraqi political blocs took to Baghdad's Sadr City on Sunday, a stronghold of fiery religious leader Muqtada al Sadr, to protest the U.S.-led siege of that area...' Iraqi political leaders protest U.S. siege of Sadr City

"More Sunni/Shia (and Kurd) coooperation"

Well, we've at least succeeded in uniting the various factions in Iraq, at least to the point they were at before we wrecked their country. Can we leave now?

This post without irony - Warring factions to gather in Iraq.

Meanwhile, back at the bodycounts: Lull in Iraq over as U.S. deaths reach 7-month high

'That the number U.S. troop deaths is rising even as the U.S. has begun withdrawing troops that had been sent to Iraq as part of the so-called surge has some officials fretting that the U.S. and Iraqi forces cannot sustain what had been billed as security gains without the additional forces. So far three of the five surge brigades have left.'

Is the surge over? Should we be asking 'did it work'? Did it work?

Iraq prepares for Baghdad exodus

How does the party line go? "Things are returning to normal. People are walking the streets again, and businesses are reopening... oh, and whole neighbourhoods are being housed in soccer stadia to facilitate the urban warfare."

'Both the intra-Shi'a conflict between the Sadrists and the government and the growing anger of the sahwa militias -- most recently dramatised by a series of strikes and public protests and by an increasing number of attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces in al-Anbar province and other Sunni strongholds where the militias have kept the peace for most of the past year -- have resulted in a sharp rise in both Iraqi and U.S. casualties over the past two months, threatening the security gains made by the surge.

The surge, which was initiated in February 2007, was aimed at pacifying both al-Anbar province and the capital by adding some 30,000 U.S. troops to the 140,000 already deployed to Iraq to stop and reverse the drift to sectarian civil war between Sunnis and the various Shi'a militias. Its strategic aim was to foster a climate of peace and stability that would encourage all factions to make the political compromises necessary for national reconciliation.

While the surge made substantial headway in achieving its tactical goals of improving security -- with the critical help of the sahwa militias which had mostly broken with al Qaeda in Iraq and allied themselves with the U.S. even before the surge got underway -- its strategic goal of political reconciliation has been far more elusive.'
Pressure to Cut Costs and Troops Strains the "Surge"

I guess one big test of the success of the surge would be what happened if the US stopped paying Sunni militias $27 million per month. Is the battle between the followers of Maliki and Sadr part of the surge, or just a squalid power struggle?

(Is it fair to ask Iraq to pay for reconstruction costs? Who blew up the infrastructure in the first place? And who threw billions - some of it from frozen Iraqi assets - at the crooked contractors who have failed to rebuild so far?)

'...These are critical days for Mr Maliki’s government. Since 25 March he has launched military offensives in Basra and Baghdad. He is receiving support from the Americans and the Kurds. But it is not clear if the Iraqi army will fight without the backing of US firepower in the air or on the ground. On Saturday a ceasefire was agreed with the Mehdi Army of Muqtada al-Sadr in Sadr City giving the government greater control. But, as in Mosul, it is not clear how far the government’s opponents have simply retreated to fight another day.

There is no doubt that security in Mosul has been deteriorating over the last six months. Mr Goran, who in effect runs the city, said that 90 people were killed in Mosul last September compared to 213 dead this March, including 58 soldiers and policemen. The number of roadside bombs had risen from 175 to 269 over the same period.

The official theory for this is that al-Qa’ida in Iraq, which has only a limited connection with Osama bin Laden and is largely home grown, has been driven out of its bastions in Anbar and Diyala provinces and Sunni districts of Baghdad. It has retreated to Mosul, the largest Sunni Arab city and the third largest in Iraq.

This is probably over-simple. Attacks on US troops in Anbar province have restarted and in Sunni districts of west Baghdad al-Qa’ida appears to be lying low rather than being eliminated. In many cases in Baghdad al-Sahwa, the supposedly anti-al-Qa’ida awakening councils paid by the Americans, in practice have cosy arrangements with al-Qa’ida...' 'Ghost city' Mosul

'..."I don't want to get too political," he observed, "but the way it looks now—it's almost as if we're fighting a perpetual war." He was quick to point out that he was "a patriotic guy" who had joined the military right after September 11. Sent to Afghanistan, he had felt that he had genuinely been able to help people. Back in the US, he had started taking classes, and that, he said, is when his "liberalization" had begun. It had continued in Iraq. "We're helping people here," the sergeant said.

If we weren't here, there are a lot of people who'd be dead the next day. But we're spinning our wheels. Al-Qaeda is defeated, but now we face Iraq's internal problems. They have to be handled politically and socially. I wouldn't say that I don't believe in the mission here, but we're not going about it in the right way.

Was there another way? "No, I don't really think so," Brown said. General David Petraeus's counterinsurgency strategy, with its stress on protecting the local population, had been very effective, but, he added, "it's a thin veneer. Beneath it—no matter how we try to make it look—we're ultimately occupiers. And I don't think you can democratize a country by being occupiers. Though we've made a lot of progress, the core issues remain. And if we can't find a political solution to them, we'll never get out of here." Most of his fellow intel officers, he noted, felt the same way...' www.nybooks.com

A couple of contrasting views:

The Good News in Iraq (Don't count on it)

Iraq starts to fix itself

...The confusion reflects the dilemma facing Iraqi government leaders.

On the one hand, many of them - particularly among the Shia factions - face a public which regards the US presence as a problem rather than a solution.

With provincial elections coming up soon, they could be outflanked by more militant elements such as the supporters of cleric Moqtada Sadr, who wants American forces out now and opposes negotiations that would cover their continued presence.

Yet the government knows that its own forces are not yet in a position to stand on their own against the two major challenges they face - the Sunni radicals of al-Qaeda and related groups, and the militant Shia militias which were partly suppressed in fierce battles this spring in Basra and Baghdad.

Both groups could simply bide their time awaiting the American withdrawal before making a comeback drive.

Violence has fallen off considerably from the horrendous levels of 2006 and the first half of 2007, but hundreds of people are still dying violent deaths every month...' Iraq faces dilemma over US troops

Triple N, whether we agree on issues or not I appreciate your diligence in keeping this thread current and available for discussion.

Well, it's nice to know someone still reads it. Has the surge been forgotten? Isn't Iraq in the news much anymore in the US?

It seems to me that the surge (or the various tactics grouped under the name "the surge") has helped achieve one aim of temporarily reducing levels of violence, but little else. (Intervention by Iran between warring Shia factions, and the desire by Sadr to gain power via the ballot box in October/November have also helped.)

A test of what lasting political progress there has been will maybe be how the elections are conducted, and how the results are accepted.