Analysis: Only Iraqis, not U.S., can win

The first 2 sentences say it all:

The harder President Bush has pushed to win in Iraq, the closer he has come to losing.

The question no longer is whether the U.S. military can fully stabilize Iraq. It cannot.

Click to expand...

Democrats? al Qaeda supporters? The cut and run crowd? Those who don't support the troops? No, no, no, and no..... The Army Times. Since they are not with Bush on this, then they must be against him, right?

Look out!!!! Islamofascists have taken over our military. Run for the nearest bunker.

Article is here.

Its called finding an excuse for the upcoming defeat of US forces.. no I mean the strategic withdrawl to bases..:2razz:

danarhea said:

The first 2 sentences say it all

Click to expand...

No, the first two sentences do not say it all. Read the rest of the article, including the following:

Now only the Iraqis can save Iraq.

They need the U.S. military’s help, no doubt. But the Bush administration has made no secret of the fact that the U.S. troop buildup in Baghdad is simply buying time for the Iraqis to sort out their differences, create a government of national unity and show they can defend themselves.

Click to expand...

This has been the strategy from the beginning.

Your eagerness to bushwhack the Bush administration has led you to mis-representing the context of the sentences which you quoted.

oldreliable67 said:

This has been the strategy from the beginning.

Click to expand...

The strategy has always been to remove the government and army of Iraq and hope the Iraqi people peacefully rise up to create a new government and army.

The problem here is two fold.

1. The Iraqi people aren't taking control of anything, let alone peacefully.
2. There is no alternate plan if the Iraqi people did not peacefully create a new government and take control of the country.

PeteEU said:

Its called finding an excuse for the upcoming defeat of US forces.. no I mean the strategic withdrawl to bases..:2razz:

Click to expand...

The insurgents are incapable of "defeating" U.S. forces. Otherwise they would have done a much more efficient job up to this point. They aren't winning anything. They are shooting and scooting, nothing more. The only "victories" the insurgents can claim are the civilian body count race.

Gibster said:

The strategy has always been to remove the government and army of Iraq and hope the Iraqi people peacefully rise up to create a new government and army.

The problem here is two fold.

1. The Iraqi people aren't taking control of anything, let alone peacefully.
2. There is no alternate plan if the Iraqi people did not peacefully create a new government and take control of the country.

Click to expand...

Emphasis mine...

Absolutely correct. We did not plan properly. We did not anticipate a populace so easily yolked by sectarian violence. The Iraqi people are exercising years of pent up division through force of arms. There is little hope for an actual success story for their government without our help. Of course our strategy to this point has been anything but sound.

JeffMerriman said:

The insurgents are incapable of "defeating" U.S. forces. Otherwise they would have done a much more efficient job up to this point. They aren't winning anything. They are shooting and scooting, nothing more. The only "victories" the insurgents can claim are the civilian body count race.

Emphasis mine...

Absolutely correct. We did not plan properly. We did not anticipate a populace so easily yolked by sectarian violence. The Iraqi people are exercising years of pent up division through force of arms. There is little hope for an actual success story for their government without our help. Of course our strategy to this point has been anything but sound.

Click to expand...

In other words, the Bush Administration has totally ****ed up everything about Iraq so far, so the answer is to trust them to continue to **** things up for another how many years?

Quote
(In other words, the Bush Administration has totally ****ed up everything about Iraq so far, so the answer is to trust them to continue to **** things up for another how many years?)

IREMON
What you are saying is possibly correct.
What would you suggest Bush do?

danarhea said:

The first 2 sentences say it all:

Democrats? al Qaeda supporters? The cut and run crowd? Those who don't support the troops? No, no, no, and no..... The Army Times. Since they are not with Bush on this, then they must be against him, right?

Look out!!!! Islamofascists have taken over our military. Run for the nearest bunker.

Article is here.

Click to expand...

A couple of things.

One, the story was WRITTEN by an AP writer. Not an Army Times writer.

AP's coverage of the news may or may not be slanted. The reporter may or may not be well informed or objective. It depends on the writer.

For example, this writer ASSUMES that we have been trying to win the war. That we have been trying to win the war without the Iraqis' help.

Analysis: Only Iraqis, not U.S., can win

By Robert Burns - The Associated Press
Posted : Sunday Jul 1, 2007 10:04:35 EDT

WASHINGTON — The harder President Bush has pushed to win in Iraq, the closer he has come to losing.

The question no longer is whether the U.S. military can fully stabilize Iraq. It cannot.

That was a possibility four years ago, immediately after Saddam Hussein’s government fell. Before the insurgency took hold. Before U.S. occupation authorities lost any chance to avoid the sectarian strife of today’s Iraq.

Now only the Iraqis can save Iraq.

Click to expand...

He says, "The question no longer is whether the U.S. military can fully stabilize Iraq. It cannot."

Who was it that thought so? Anyone besides the uninformed war critics?

Did you know that some, not all, but some reporters are chosen to cover the war because of their vehement opposition to it? Editors figure that it will allow (or force) the reporter to see the OTHER side of the story and challenge him or her to be professional enough to write it. That eventually mellows them out and afterwards they are better able to walk that middle road, though some never will and they only get a few hundred yards near it.

There has ALWAYS been the idea that we would stay long enough to help keep as much peace as possible and then once the Iraqi forces were in great enough numbers and trained well enough they would stand up as we stood down.

So why is it this writer is introducing what anyone familiar with the conduct of the war can tell you is a strawman argument?

You think this is good journalism?

You know better than that. In fact I'd bet you chose this article because you knew it was a glaring departure from the reality of the situation as well as in journalistic standards, right?

Iriemon said:

In other words, the Bush Administration has totally ****ed up everything about Iraq so far, so the answer is to trust them to continue to **** things up for another how many years?

Click to expand...

This is not some friggin banana republic where Executive terms are determined by vote.

They are set by law. In November 2008 there will be another election. One in which some here can only mouth off about and thankfully not have a hand in deciding. The winner of that election will have 4 years to govern. And so on.

JeffMerriman said:

The insurgents are incapable of "defeating" U.S. forces. Otherwise they would have done a much more efficient job up to this point. They aren't winning anything. They are shooting and scooting, nothing more. The only "victories" the insurgents can claim are the civilian body count race.

Click to expand...

Of course the US miltary cant be defeated as a whole, but the insurgents dont need to defeat the US military, just as the Viet Cong did not have to defeat the US military.

PeteEU said:

Of course the US miltary cant be defeated as a whole, but the insurgents dont need to defeat the US military, just as the Viet Cong did not have to defeat the US military.

Click to expand...

You're right. As long as they have the assistance of the liberal Western media and the loony left who is leading the ludicrous liberals, the Jihadists are sitting pretty.

bhkad said:

You're right. As long as they have the assistance of the liberal Western media and the loony left who is leading the ludicrous liberals, the Jihadists are sitting pretty.

Click to expand...

So what would you do? Lie about the situation and the facts on the ground just to bolster the moral at home? Create positive news just to boost moral?

It has nothing to do with "liberal" press, but everything to do with facts on the ground. There is no way that the press can spin the situation on the ground to a positive without lieing outright about it. Even Fox News does its best to "spin" positives, and anyone with half a brain can see that they fail more than they succed in that.

Iraq was a disaster from day 1. Its funny how almost everything the "anti-war" movement fortold has actually happened, and almost nothing of what the "pro-war" movement has happened..

bhkad said:

This is not some friggin banana republic where Executive terms are determined by vote.

They are set by law. In November 2008 there will be another election. One in which some here can only mouth off about and thankfully not have a hand in deciding. The winner of that election will have 4 years to govern. And so on.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the valuable insights.