xerxes

really ... when was that ... it is funny from one side we got these kind of non-existant statements from Americans, while from the other side a whole bunch theories from other Americans that Iran is arming the Sunnis

what you wrote there, reminds me of Muslim propoganda against Israel.

very funny .... yet sad

__________________
If we contrast the rapid progress of this mischievous discovery of gunpowder with the slow and laborious advances of reason, science, and the arts of peace, a philosopher, according to his temper, will laugh or weep at the folly of mankind. - Edward Gibbon

highsea

Are you talking about Bush and A-jad?

__________________
My baby called me up. She said- Why don't you ever take me out? Pick me up in your brand new car....You shake the short change from the old fruit jar...

xerxes

yeah ,,, those two clowns ... that although are clowns are nevertheless influenced by saner but perhapes more dangerous people

FSV

I'm just going off of their public statements & speechs, made in the last few years.

Galrahn

I don't see any evidence that Cheney has had impact on Iraq policy in over a year. If you look at 2006, there wasn't much in terms of a military aspect in Iraqi policy by the United States, only political policy. The military lost 2006 very similar to how they lost 2004, it became a political chess match between those with an ivory tower theory regarding the definition of victory and those with an ivory tower theory regarding the definition of defeat.

If it wasn't for Bush, who is at the same time the least articulate leader of a super power in history, and btw one of the most secretive western leaders in modern history, I think what is happening in the region would be presented differently by the media. In part it may be intentional by the administration, although I think the presentation of Iraqi policy is probably just another unintentional side effect of quarks specific to Bush as a leader.

While you have to look very hard to find what is happening on the ground in Iraq, if you look you will see the 82nd and some other special units have moved into neighborhoods and are now living with Iraqi's in some of the worst neighborhoods. This is major shift in strategy on the ground, in the past US forces would come and go, either during day or night, but always retire to camp after a set period of time. Now the US forces are basically raiding a militia HQ, and setting up camp right in the middle of the neighborhood with Iraqi forces in the lead and US forces in support. It isn't US forces driving down the street waving to Iraqi's, it is a walk through the streets talking to the locals, very similar to the early SOF operations in Afghanistan. The change is fundamental in strategy, but with less than a dozen western reporters actually operating outside the green zones it is difficult to get a feel for this change on the ground, and how it is affecting the local situations because change occurs slowly.

It isn't just Iraq though. The Iran-Iraq border closed, and all of a sudden mechanized Iraqi troops are swarming the dirt trails on the border, seizing smuggled cargoes as contraband even when it isn't. This black market even for legal goods hurts Iranian influenced insurgency activity in Iraq as much as illegal cargo does, after all, luxury items actually go further than bullets do in terms of influence.

If you look at the specific units selected for the surge, they are all mech infantry, spec forces, and defense forces. They are clearly selected for a containment strategy to be focused along the borders and an in populated areas. The forces will use unrest in Iraq as bait to eliminate incomers, and develop intelligence to be exploited from sources outside Iraq.

It is about people, but not the ones your citing. Gates comes from a CIA background, Petraeus is the US Army's premier expert in counter insurgency operational techniques, the guy literally wrote the US Army manual on counter insurgency (US Army Field Manual FM 3-24), and Fallon is perhaps the most politically connected officer internationally in the US Military, with extensive connections throughout the major players in the Middle East, Europe, and Asia. These are the people leading the situation now for the United States, you can see where this is going if you look at the men, and a frontal assault or strike by the US is perhaps the least likely scenario given the backgrounds of the individuals.

I'll tell you want I expect next, I think one of the things to watch for in 2007 is terrorism inside Iran and perhaps also inside Pakistan. I have heard some silly theories that the US would stage some sort of accidental attack against a US ship by Iran, but I think it is more likely a pissed off Sunni group blows up a major refinery or some other critical infrastructure inside Iran, and if Iran is supplying explosives to Iraq its a good bet the explosives used in Iran will be Iranian.

The media has become comfortable calling the CIA inept, stupid, and ineffective. I can only imagine the CIA and Pentagon welcome this type of disinformation and encourage it when they can, because it would play directly into the strategy I expect to see unfold in 2007.

xerxes

I enjoyed reading this ....thank you so much. Questions:

#1) in yr opinion, was it in anyway doable and acceptable to the American people to make Iraq a bottomless chest, where the (DoD) would keet pouring troops right after the fall of Saddam in 2003. or for that matter right after the bombing of the Golden Mosque in 2006. As I understand it, GWB tried to make the war very tolerable and easy for the American people by oversimlifying it and keep troops committed to minimum.

that is very thoughfull, thanks. Fallon is indeed the diplomat .. and the kind smart people that i really admire.

Question #2: we are in 2007. What goals do you think the current US administration have vis-a-vis to Iran before the retirement of the war president in 2008.

smilingassassin

Ah yes a war president, who for the first 8 months of his presidency was heavily engaged in the whole notion of "no child left behind", that is untill 9/11 reared its ugly head. Some war president, you think he would have imediately gone to war as soon as he was sworn in....

__________________
Facts to a liberal is like Kryptonite to Superman.

-- Larry Elder

Galrahn

Bush has lost his credibility when speaking on the war with his simplicity approach, and with that credibility the war has moved from the issue of strength he was able to win the election of 2004 with to the issue of weakness his approval numbers sink to in 2007.

From the right Bush faces many political detractors about the war, from not having the nation on a war footing to blundering the military leadership situation of the war by retaining Rumsfeld for so long, and on the left he faces criticism regarding the cost of military operations and additionally regarding several of his hypocritical stances on foreign policy in the region, specifically with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, because they are a larger part of the events of 9/11 than Iraq is.

None of it matters though, because in the end it is what happens on the ground in Iraq that will decide what people think. Bush isn't the only American politician who has blundered politically regarding Iraq though, several of the Democrat Party challangers have tripped as well.

I want to point something out. How many true news articles by the AP and Routers crowd have you seen from inside Iraq lately? I'm not talking about causualties or pictures of a burning fire as a result of a car bomb, but I am talking about man on the street information? There is a major debate inside Iraq happening right now, and I haven't seen a word of it in the MSM. It may have something to do with only 1 embedded western AP journalist in Iraq, with every other AP and Routers reporter reporting from the green zone.

The other day I came across a pretty good article that sumerized events happening inside Iraq. It isn't the only one of its kind, but I think it is written well enough that a reasonably informed person regarding Iraq can get an understanding of what is happening, both from the American perspective and the Iraqi government perspective, which sometimes are the same perspective. If you look around you will find other articles along the same lines with more details of each of the topics covered in that post, but that is a good summery in my opinion.

I think there is momentum right now in favor of the US in Iraq, it started after the election and events have happened since that have built upon that momentum, but it is too early to discuss the momentum in US political circles. I will point out though that it is a major reason why Hillary is not changing her position, because to do so now would result in her losing the possibility of being on the winning side of the Iraq issue, while the rest of the Democrats wanting to be president look like defeatest to voters.

If you avoid the media spin and Drudgereport RED BANNERS, the reality is the US policy regarding Iran has been to be a back bench partisipant in the IAEA process with the French, Germans, and British in the lead since 2004, and I don't see anything that will change that in the near term. The US doesn't need to change policy yet, not unless Iran does something stupid like confirm they are building a nuclear weapon by conducting a test or something.

Right now the credibility of European diplomacy is on the line, not US diplomacy, and the European governments know what is at stake. Remember, Putin is watching, if the Europeans can't effectively deal diplomatically with Iran, how are they going to ever stand up to Russian while they have their hand on the gas pump to Europe?

Europe has plenty of incentive to get Iran to negotiate, from troops in Lebanon to diplomatic credibility to the reality a rogue nuclear device is just as likely to hit them as it is the US. The US doesn't need to do anything to disrupt the processes already in motion by the Europeans, at least as long as there is no military capability in their nuclear program.

StanlyS

The question that poses here is with one already failed war in Iraq. Will Bush go against public opinion and launch an attack against Iran. Or maybe even if Israel launches a pre emptive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would Bush have enough suport to even support Israel.

These are interesting questions and shows the power of the American people and the now democrats.

What do you guys think?

What failed war?
It is clear to all actively involved and spectators the old Iraq government is no more. The old Iraq is gone. Thus this first Mission of the war is over. Their are many other missions before a total win.
Since our first victory our news sources Have had a hay day of front page headlines starring at only flaws of why and how a new permanent national government of Iraq has not been set up to a near finite degree, law enforcement and military organized trained, equipped and motivated totally controlling not only its citizens but equally important its warring neighboring countries. These days they report fully how the war has gone on to long, we are weakening by being strined to thin, far, long, and now it is time to wimp back home. To many losses of our troops. Get real, good grief, five times as many folks have been murdered right here in country in drive by shooting then have given their lives in the military for defense of us and the planet as a whole.
Maybe actually we the people want our enemies to picture us in a no win posture when in actuality we have not just an expreranced active reserve but also an inactive reserve, plus, to whip the thugs of terror, Iran and elsewhere. When the right time comes we will squish em like a bug underfoot. We are excellent at quick micro wave wars. It is just the set up takes a bit at times.
In a war now of mostly insurgency in Iraq, Isreal, and elsewhere, it is impossible to end it all until such time as the actual heartland of the warring faction supporters has been taken out. Nearly any person who can understand the facts of Vietnam knows this well.
In WW11 Russia did not take back its' homeland and stop at the German border nor did the allies take back northern Africa, Italy, Europe and stop at the border of Germany then ask the Germans have you had enough! NO! Neither is the case with today with Iran. Iran's terrorists it supports are all over the planet. Take away their homeland and we take away their bite and most motivation.
What is this, we are going to fight off skirmishes in Iraq long enough to allow enough time for Iran to arm itself with nukes and a way to deliver them? Only some kind of short term thinking, self serving, uninformed day dreamer would believe it is all just going to go away buy itself. Never would a good leader allow this. Nor will ours! It is rather the time to strike is not ready "just yet" but it is coming as sure as the sun rises.
The people of the whole planet thru the UN and otherwise have asked, begged, pleaded, and they have even tried to bib Iran to stop this quest. Iran has clearly shouted to all they will shortly be the tenth nation to have deliverable Nuclear arms. Today they deliver small chlorine bombs. They can just the same deliver dirty nuke bombs tomorrow. The day after tomorrow they will have the real thing. The details of this are in print everywhere.
Trying to be reasonable with discussions have not remotely work for they lie outright. Thus our President clearly states their will be no more one way conversation of conciliation.
We are now well entrenched in Iraq. Come to think of it the same is true of Afghanistan. Yes, on both sides of Iran. We have aircraft fleets in the area at ready. Many very strong upset nations have told Iran outright, no nukes under any circumstances. Millions of people in Iran hate their government and leaders who have only ultimate Armageddon as a goal for the destiny of not just their own country but a good chunk of the planet. These people will more then cheer liberators by helping us slug it out. They suffer today from limited ability to act as they would please, not limited thinking. All people love freedom first.
Have no fear by the time of the elections the Democrats will be singing a whole different tune to be remotely considered for office.
Will President Bush go against public opinion? No, he will not. He will not allow any nation who has publicly announced by word and action to the entire planet we in the USA are it biggest enemy to be destroyed. Its' big satin. When this enemy has taken action, as they have, to be manufacturing their own nukes from scratch to finish against international law and is attacking our military and otherwise It is time to more then prepare for final action.
Finally the game of chess was invented by the Persians, Iran. Should Israel, Irans little satin, attack Iran's' nuclear sites would our president back them up? CHECK!

xerxes

Fear... naught ...

You will be adored and loved by the important members in this forum ... you got all the right elements

xerxes

ahhhh .... how cute ...

comeone Mr assassin, we agreed on no joking

T_igger_cs_30

__________________
FEAR NAUGHT

I don't work here ...I am an analyst!

xerxes

should go like this ....

...oh the foolishness of youth.... is as bad as the lack of the wisdom and experience of the elders

T_igger_cs_30

Really have an agenda dont you , why is that?

xerxes

just kidding mate .. dont take me seriously i have a huge technical exam on a software in a few days for a job interview, i shouldnt be here at all ...