How's the troop surge going...

[John21]

On the off chance that some of you might actually want to know what's going on over there, here's the latest video briefing from Commanding General Multinational Division, Baghdad and 1st Cavalry Division Maj. Gen. Joseph Fil Jr. video transcript

You're really not going to have any idea what's really going on over there unless you go outside of CNN or Fox. There's been all this debate going on over whether the surge will work or not, and what happens when Operation Law and Order kicks off…I don't know, the major news agencies don't tell us. They'll give a brief description of the operation, and like CNN reported saying coalition forces had some success and then show the aftermath of a carbomb explosion, before moving on to the more pressing concerns over what's going to happen with Anna Nicole.

What they don't mention is that the insurgent's conducted 20 attacks, and they were all ineffective or defeated with no coalition causalities. Or that U.S. forces completed all 10 of their mission objectives for the day, and they're clearing areas so quickly that the bottleneck is in getting the support troops in for the control part of the plan. Or that of the four Iraqi battalions that are showing up, they're far better trained and led than was expected.

Yeah I know watching those half-hour briefings suck, but at least you end up being able to form your own opinions from a second-hand account rather than just swallowing a fifth-hand analysis. Who knows - this just might work. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[whiskeytown]

[ QUOTE ]
On the off chance that some of you might actually want to know what's going on over there, here's the latest video briefing from Commanding General Multinational Division, Baghdad and 1st Cavalry Division Maj. Gen. Joseph Fil Jr. video transcript

You're really not going to have any idea what's really going on over there unless you go outside of CNN or Fox. There's been all this debate going on over whether the surge will work or not, and what happens when Operation Law and Order kicks off…I don't know, the major news agencies don't tell us. They'll give a brief description of the operation, and like CNN reported saying coalition forces had some success and then show the aftermath of a carbomb explosion, before moving on to the more pressing concerns over what's going to happen with Anna Nicole.

What they don't mention is that the insurgent's conducted 20 attacks, and they were all ineffective or defeated with no coalition causalities. Or that U.S. forces completed all 10 of their mission objectives for the day, and they're clearing areas so quickly that the bottleneck is in getting the support troops in for the control part of the plan. Or that of the four Iraqi battalions that are showing up, they're far better trained and led than was expected.

Yeah I know watching those half-hour briefings suck, but at least you end up being able to form your own opinions from a second-hand account rather than just swallowing a fifth-hand analysis. Who knows - this just might work.

[/ QUOTE ]

www.iraqslogger.com is the BEST source I've found for outside news - gives you the daily headlines in both Iraq and the US - they've scooped most of the MSM outlets on a daily basis -

even the Iranian news website has some good info - I knew from them the border between Iran and Iraq was going to be closed 4 days before the Americans announced it - (Iranians were warning pilgrams about border issues coming up)

no doubt part of the reason for our success in recent days is the virtual evacuation of the Mahdi army, that seems to have just faded into thin air a couple weeks after the surge was announced. Most of the killings lately, esp. the helicopters shot down are believed to have been hit by Sunni militants - but the Shia seems to have successfully executed a tactical repositioning - because we're not getting them killed and we can't find them -

rb

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
no doubt part of the reason for our success in recent days is the virtual evacuation of the Mahdi army, that seems to have just faded into thin air a couple weeks after the surge was announced.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's pretty obvious that the insurgents are backing off a little right now. We'll see how it will play out, but I think it is a huge tactical mistake on their part. It's a whole lot easier to hold a hill than to retake it.

[whiskeytown]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
no doubt part of the reason for our success in recent days is the virtual evacuation of the Mahdi army, that seems to have just faded into thin air a couple weeks after the surge was announced.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's pretty obvious that the insurgents are backing off a little right now. We'll see how it will play out, but I think it is a huge tactical mistake on their part. It's a whole lot easier to hold a hill than to retake it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't the same tactical situation - the Insurgents aren't using conventional military tactics like taking a hill and holding it -

and reoccupying/hiding in a city with a military force that looks like the civilian population is a lot easier then retaking a hill - I think it'll be just like before - they'll just wait till the Americans are gone and resume as before once those forces have pulled out - unless we plan on occupying Iraq indefinately, which it seems this Administration's plan is until further notice, judging by the number of permanent military bases we have there.

then when it blows up again they'll blame Dem's for losing the war they started, ran, and ended under Republican control. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
and reoccupying/hiding in a city with a military force that looks like the civilian population is a lot easier then retaking a hill - I think it'll be just like before - they'll just wait till the Americans are gone and resume as before once those forces have pulled out - unless we plan on occupying Iraq indefinately, which it seems this Administration's plan is until further notice, judging by the number of permanent military bases we have there.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's ultimately going to be a question of popular support for the new government, or lack thereof, in regards to maintaining peace and stability. However someone tries to twist the situation around, 90%+ of the population wants peace and if this latest attempt succeeds in stabilizing the situation, the government will gain the popular support needed to maintain it. That's a big "if" but we'll see.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and reoccupying/hiding in a city with a military force that looks like the civilian population is a lot easier then retaking a hill - I think it'll be just like before - they'll just wait till the Americans are gone and resume as before once those forces have pulled out - unless we plan on occupying Iraq indefinately, which it seems this Administration's plan is until further notice, judging by the number of permanent military bases we have there.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's ultimately going to be a question of popular support for the new government, or lack thereof, in regards to maintaining peace and stability. However someone tries to twist the situation around, 90%+ of the population wants peace and if this latest attempt succeeds in stabilizing the situation, the government will gain the popular support needed to maintain it. That's a big "if" but we'll see.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you say 90% of the Iraqi population wants peace, and at what price? I think it more likely that at least 50% of the Iraqi population wants their own side (Sunni or Shi'ite as the case may be) to WIN, and if that means crushing the other side, then that's what they'd like to see done.

Also, even if the government succeeds in stabilizing the situation (temporarily) is it really likely that the Sunnis and Shi'ites will put aside their centuries' old hatreds and become peaceful towards each other? Not to mention the backlash the Shi'ites now want to take revenge on the Sunnis for what happened under Saddam. Not to mention the huge percentage of Iraqis who crave religious rule.

Sorry but I have to say it again: Neo-Con dreams are what the Iraq war was based on and these dreams took no account of the mindset or historical loyalties of the peoples in the region. Sure it sounded good: bring them democracy - but on what basis? Dreams and wishes of the Neo-Con and the West, not the dreams and wishes of the Iraqis. It's a very, very different world over there,and it just isn't going to change all that much in a few short years or a few decades. It's not like the average Iraqi has been secretly hankering for democracy for all these decades of Iraq's existence. Yes, many hated being oppressed, but that doesn't mean they thought democracy would be their guiding light and salvation.

[iron81]

I saw an interesting Chicago Tribune article written by a reported embedded with troops participating in the Surge in Baghdad. It looks like we're seeing some improvement in the security situation over there.

[whiskeytown]

[ QUOTE ]
I saw an interesting Chicago Tribune article written by a reported embedded with troops participating in the Surge in Baghdad. It looks like we're seeing some improvement in the security situation over there.

[/ QUOTE ]

except I don't think it's cause we're KILLING people -

Iraqslogger talked about an arrest today - 131 pistols being hauled across the border - from IRAQ to IRAN -

reasons why are only speculation, but I'd harbor a guess they're temporarily relocating troops and weapons out of Baghdad and other areas where the Surge is going thru -

at least we put an end to people driving into our compounds, kidnapping our soldiers, and executing them mercenary style -

RB

[cardcounter0]

2 Baghdad car bombs kill 56, injure 127
AP - Sun Feb 18, 12:10 PM ET
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Two car bombs exploded in an outdoor market in Baghdad on Sunday, killing at least 56 people and injuring scores in the deadliest attack since U.S. and Iraqi forces began a major security push around the capital last week.
~~~~~~~~~
Too bad these 183 didn't listen to the proper news sources to find out how good things are going.

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
My prediction is that the surge is not nearly as important as the Bush admin's willingness to side with the Shiites. As I said, he invitjavascript: x()
Quoteed the IRI's leader to shake his hand in the White House, the Shiite militias are voluntarily stepping down, and the Sunnis are coming under increasing pressure.

The result will be greater approval by Iraqis. There will be positive stories coming out of Iraq. There will be photos of cheering crowds. What won't be stressed is that the cheering crowds will all be Shiites.

The Sunnis will lose political influence and power. They will increasingly become refugees. Initially, Sunni attacks will increase in ferocity, but they will become a persecuted minority, and eventually their level of violence will decline.

Bush will continue to split Iraq's Shiites from Iran's influence by carrot and stick, that is, more help to the Iraqi Shiites, more complaints about the Iranians. He will not invade Iran. There will not be a war with Iran.

This is, as I said, exactly what I recommended. The least of all evils. The only thing I don't like about it is that Bush is doing this without admitting it. It's kind of sneaky. But the end result is the best to be hoped for.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree I am simplifying things by saying we are siding with the Shiites, but I have to simplify things for the simple minds here.

Yes, there is a Shiite split. That's why Bush invited the head of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq to Washington DC and not Al-Sadr. The two are rivals. Bush is trying to throw his support behind the IRI despite its closer ties to Iran. He's trying to drive a wedge there. But basically, he is trying to win over the Shiites and abandon the Sunnis. That's as complex as I can get for the people here, many of whom still think there is one monolithic "Islamic terrorist movement" that only hates Israel and the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]


* Report
Sunnis are the insurgents. The Shias own the government in Iraq - why would they try to overthrow that institution?

Sadr is running because his folks are being picked up - - and charged for their criminal activity. His power is tied directly to the positions held by his party in the government. To stand outside that government - to take up arms against the Iraqi military - is TREASON.
That is the reason for his hiding and calling for "cooperation". And militias are indeed approaching US officials (This is personal knowledge by the way) asking for an entree into legitimacy. Those who have committed criminal acts will be prosecuted.

BTW - what happened to the media obsession with the Iraq "civil war"? Wasn't that the flavor of the month? Oh - it's February. Yeah. Forgot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Posted from another forum. They to know a hell of a lot more about what's going on than you guys.