TheChosenOne

And your sir are more then welcome to your opinion on if we are winning or not, I won't argue that, at least I won't try to.

This appears to be the case but it is yet too early to determine for a variety of reasons. As more and more troops move into Baghdad and this plan unfolds, I can for surely see the violence decreasing. I do still expect bombings and spikes in violence to occur from time to time but overall for violence to decrease.

See the thing is, is that the British really never had to much to pacify in the first place compared to other areas in the country. The area they have been in control of, with the exception of the Kurds in the north, has been rather quiet because the area is Shi'ite. Attacks are on the increase in the southern areas and now the British are scaling back heading towards a complete withdrawl. How can that be looked at as a succes when just as violence is spreading southward, the British pull out?Therefore, as the title states, it can be looked at as a defeat for the British. I'm not saying the British didn't do a good job, I'm just saying that their timing for pullout is bad. Not to mention that it's highly likely that with the security crackdown in Baghdad, the Mahdi army and others will focus their attacks elsewhere on easier targets, as appears to be the case thus far. And those easier targets mean heading south is a very viable option, especially for the Mahdi Army who enjoys broad support in the southern regions. Like I stated earlier, attacks in our AO and AOI have increased dramatically and the complexity likewise and this trend continues to spread southward. Last night, there was a cordinatted attack between seperate cells on 4 different FOB's at the same time anywhere from an hour south of Baghdad to 6 hours south of Baghad. Since I've been here in country, March of 2006, this has yet to occur until last night.

TheChosenOne

By the way, I hope your family members and friends are staying safe and make it back without incidence.

ExNavyAmerican

I appreciate your concern. I will pass it along. I pray for them everyday.

On a final note, I understand your point, and I expect there to be extra violence for a while, but I expect it will subside.

__________________
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
- Thomas Jefferson

Shek

Once again, of those 70% that voted, nearly all voted for their religious parties to assume power. In my book, a sign of a democratic form of government is that the voters then accept the results of the election without resorting to violence or descending into civil war. This is not the case in Iraq. A fairer statement might be that Iraqis accept democracy as long as it's their religious party that is leading the democracy.

As far as a parliamentary system being a bad form of government, I don't necessary buy into that. There are pros and cons to the various versions of democracy, but minority rights can be protected against the tyranny of the majority under a parliamentary system. Typically, it's ensconced in your constitution, and then it relies on how it is enforced. There is not a national compact in Iraq that agrees that minority rights are properly protected, and those rights that exist are not currently being enforced.

Lastly, the soft ethnic cleansing cannot be boiled down to a result of who is the PM (it does contribute to a degree, but would appointing Allawi, a Shia secularist with some legitimacy among Sunni, stop the soft ethnic cleansing in the Shia south - no; would it stop the hard ethnic cleansing that is occuring in Baghdad - no). It is a result because of competing religious sects and multiple factions within each sect. The democracy that you seem to hail has actually helped to reinforce that which makes it fail in many respects. By making the religious parties the building block of the democracy, it has legitimized those forces which tear it apart (the militia wings of these same parties).

By kicking the militia can down the road due to insufficient forces to tackle it early on, it was hoped that the future cost of confronting them would be reduced. Unfortunately, this has not been the case.

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

Shek

The fact that the violence has subsided is not proof that the "surge" is working. It is too early to jump to such a conclusion. It is proof that the enemy is a thinking and adaptive enemy. They are sitting back and observing the changes in our operations to identify weaknesses and vulnerabilities. This is the same OPTEMPO pattern that shows itself when units change up during the RIP/TOA.

On a separate note, I second TheChosenOne's thoughts and wish your family members and friends the best and pray for their safe return.

ExNavyAmerican

I thank you for your concern. Now on a far less friendly note...

In regard to your comment before the one above: I already countered most of it, and you're playing the liberal (whether or not you are liberal) game of trying to distract me with reiterating my previous arguments. That's what I hate about the Iraq argument in particular; it turn into a, "is not; is to" argument. I will, however, argue the inconclusive point of the parliamentary system. Let's look at it this way. That aside, say we put constitutional provisions in the Iraqi constitution protecting the minority; it wouldn't matter. Why? Because a parliamentary system puts a single party into power: i.e. the majority party elects the associate executive that holds the most power, the Prime Minister. That Prime Minister is of the majority party, and, being a member of parliament, he can stay there indefinitely as long as his party remains in the majority. Human corruption would far out weigh any safeguards in the system. Also, this is deeper, but it also invites universal loyalty to the majority party because a change in government causes chaos. In a nutshell, the parliamentary system is corrupt, and worse than other democratic/republican forms, but you can't attribute that corruption to a failure of the system. Now, back to the thread topic...

I didn't say that it proves the surge is working. Catch your breath: it may not work. Whether or not you want it to; you sound like you don't. I'm saying that evidence suggests that it is working. But I didn't jump to a conclusion. I love the way you give those cowards, aka our enemy, any credit! It's appalling. You do this while contemplating, in a very skeptical manner, that the plan that would assure our victory is failing? Why do you do that? They don't have much of a strategy, except for the losers trick: suicide bombings, and attacks. Anyway it is too early to tell, but so far it looks like the surge is working. Don't freak out; it might not.

Excuse an typos, and grammatical errors, please.

MrFirst

Good news for America.

Shek

I am well aware of how the Iraqi government is setup and that the executive is elected by the parliament (and you are incorrect that a parliamentary necessarily puts a single party into power - unless you have vote rigging, it tends to require a ruling coalition, just as you have in Iraq, to have the power). I would also tend to agree with you that a parliamentary system is probably more corruptable based on the relationship between the parliament and executive. However, let's say that Iraq instead had an executive that was elected independently of the legislature. Given Iraq's demographics, and the fact that unlike typical elections where candidates run, parties were the basis of the elections, do you think that a representative government that mimics the US' structure would have resulted in a different outcome? Not likely. The counterfactual to a parliamentary system ends at the same result. Regardless, as per my Allawi example demonstrates, because the central government doesn't have central authority, you cannot simply attribute the ethnic cleansings to the PM. Would a secular Allawi be able to penetrate and enforce his decisions within the religious control exerted in Basra?

You did make a conclusion by stating that it appears to be working and then citing the reduction in violence. I stated why you cannot make a causal link between the reduction in violence and the surge. In other words, it is quite plausible, and in fact, most likely, that this initial reduction in violence is the action-reaction-counteraction cycle that always happens as the situation on the battlefield changes. We know that the Mahdi Army is doing exact this.

Next, I do give the "insurgency" credit. Why? Because after billions of dollars and nearly four years, we are further from our objectives than we were in the summer of 2003. The moment you begin to underestimate your opposition is the moment they take advantage of this. At the tactical level, that moment is when you let your guard down and end up dead. At the strategic level, it's when you call them dead enders and instead of mobilizing all the elements of national power, you keep dumping everything in the laps of the military and end up where we are today.

As far as suicide attacks being a "loser's trick," it seems to have been very effective in getting the US and France to quit Lebanon over two decades ago (and they seem to be in an ever stronger position in Lebanon these days). While this is the clearest case of suicide attacks being a "winner's trick," there are several other suicide campaigns where moderate successes were achieved by the organizations employing suicide terror as a weapon. To claim that it is a "loser's trick" is simply not accurate, and once again, underestimates the enemy.

Lastly, probably the biggest reason to not try and either claim success or failure for the surge is that the MNF-I Commander has publically stated that it won't be clear until late summer. If the person with the best vantage point to make the judgement won't do so until another 5-6 months has passed, how can others do so?

xerxes

@thechosenOne

... okay ... then, i probably misunderstood. sorry

__________________
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

Shek

ExNavyAmerican,

Just to let you know, I am very much invested in our success in Iraq, having spent one tour over there. However, I take a critical look at all news, good or bad, and try to make balanced judgements. Hope is not a method, but can cloud judgment.

Cheers.

Shek

TheChosenOne

No harm done Xerxes.

TheChosenOne

I must make a correction. Britian was in charge of MND-SE. I posted the wrong one. Multi-National Force - Iraq