Has 'the Surge' Failed?

[Nickdfresh]

Friday, Mar. 07, 2008
Ominous Rise in Baghdad Bombings
By Charles Crain/Baghdad

Thursday's double bombing in Baghdad, which killed nearly 70 people and left hundreds more wounded, was the worst attack in Iraq since June 2007. It continues a troubling trend: a slow but steady increase in deadly bombings across the country. The troop surge is ending and the U.S. has begun withdrawing soldiers from Baghdad, but these attacks may indicate that a military or political solution to the Sunni insurgency may be as far off as it was a year ago.

The attacks capped off a violent week. Last Sunday more than 20 people died in bombings across the capital. And last month nearly 100 people were killed when two women detonated suicide vests in a crowded Baghdad market. According to statistics released by the U.S. military such attacks declined sharply for most of 2007, bottoming out in December. Since late last year, though, car bombings and suicide vest bombings have increased steadily.

Despite this week's carnage the absolute number of bombings is still far lower than it was one year ago. The problem, however, is not simply lives lost, but also what the slow increase in attacks says about the resiliency of the Sunni insurgency. Battered by Shi'ite militias, the U.S. military and the defection of more moderate insurgents, al-Qaeda in Iraq and other radical insurgent groups are much weaker now than they were just last summer. But, as U.S. officials are quick to acknowledge, they still have the men, the money and the organization to pose a serious threat.

The question now is how that threat will be kept under control. American troop levels in Baghdad and the rest of Iraq will return this year to about the same level as 2006 — the year that saw the worst of the country's sectarian violence. Helping to fill that void, supposedly, will be former members of the Sunni insurgency: thousands have become U.S.-paid counter-insurgents and, in some cases, members of the Iraqi government security forces. Unlike the mostly Shi'ite Iraqi army and police, these Sunnis have credibility in their towns and neighborhoods and have proven effective in fighting their former insurgent allies.

The trouble is that this ground-level military solution may be in conflict with other government efforts to reduce the violence and foster stability in Iraq. The Karrada bombing came on the heels of a state visit by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and struck a neighborhood that is home to Iraq's largest Shi'ite political party and many Shi'ite government officials. The timing and location of this bombing may have been a coincidence, but Karrada makes a nice target for Sunni militants who frame their fight as a struggle against Iranian domination.

The long-term difficulty for the United States and the Iraqi government is that this suspicion of Iran is not simply a fantasy of radical Sunni insurgents. It is a very real fear of Sunni former insurgents currently cooperating in the fight against al-Qaeda. Former insurgent leaders routinely scorn the Iraqi government's intentions, casting it as a pawn of the Iranians. So, as the Iraqi government strives to reduce violence by improving its relationship with Iran, it may be setting the stage for continued conflict with disaffected Sunnis.

Time (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1720477,00.html)

[LoungeMachine]

Welp, the "surge" was supposed to clear the way and "buy time" for the Iraqi "government" to meet the "benchmarks" set forth by Congress.

Anybody read of any benchmarks being met lately?

Me neither.

Oh, they did sign some oil contracts. But no Oil Law

[Nickdfresh]

Well, the Surge (and out $12 billion a month) made Baghdad safe for Ahmadinejad to walk around while throngs of Shiite gov't officials licked his asshole...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/02/29/ahmadinejad.jpg
Is this your guy, America?
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/02/iraq-ahmadineja.html

[Nickdfresh]

Blast kills 16 Iraqis; 8 GIs slain Monday
Roadside bomb hits bus traveling from Basra to Nasiriyah
The Associated Press
updated 7:40 a.m. ET, Tues., March. 11, 2008

BAGHDAD - The U.S. military said Tuesday that three American soldiers were killed the day before by a roadside bomb north of Baghdad, bringing to eight the number of troops who died that day.

In southern Iraq, meanwhile, a roadside bomb hit a bus that was traveling from Basra to Nasiriyah, killing at least 16 civilians on board, according to a Nasiriyah policeman who spoke on condition of anonymity as he wasn’t authorized to release the information.

At least 22 others were wounded in the attack, which took place about 50 miles south of Nasiriyah.

An interpreter also was killed on Monday along with three soldiers when they were hit by the bomb in eastern Diyala province, a military statement said. Another soldier was wounded in the attack.

On Monday in Baghdad, five American soldiers on a foot patrol were killed when a suicide bomber detonated his explosives vest after approaching them.

Deadliest day since Sept. 10
The attacks marked the deadliest day for American forces in Iraq since Sept. 10, when eight soldiers died in two road accidents and two Marines were killed fighting insurgents in Anbar province.

The attack in Baghdad showed the insurgents’ ability to strike in the heart of the heavily fortified capital, as well as in restive Diyala province.

Three other American troops and an Iraqi interpreter also were wounded in the Baghdad attack.

Iraqi police said two civilians also were killed in the bombing — the deadliest single attack against the U.S. military since Jan. 28 when five soldiers were killed in a roadside bomb in the northern city of Mosul.

The suicide bomber hit the soldiers after they had left their Humvees and were chatting with shop owners, an Iraqi police officer who witnessed the attack said on condition of anonymity as he wasn’t authorized to speak to the media.

More U.S. soldiers patrolling on foot
As part of the military’s counterinsurgency plans, U.S. bases are now inside neighborhoods and more U.S. soldiers are getting out of their armored vehicles to patrol Baghdad on foot.

While the face-to-face contact builds goodwill, it also gives suicide bombers, who often slip past security vehicle checkpoints by walking, better access to striking soldiers.

According to military figures, attacks in Baghdad are down 75 percent since June 2007, largely because of a boost in U.S. troops, a cease-fire by the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army militia and the role of former Sunni militants and tribal groups who have switched sides to join U.S. forces against al-Qaida in Iraq.

But some fear that violence in Baghdad and elsewhere will accelerate after the withdrawal of thousands of American troops.

The drawdown began last December with the departure of one brigade, numbering about 5,000 troops, dropping the overall U.S. troop level in Iraq to 158,000. More troops are set to leave by July, though it has yet to be decided is whether further reductions will be made after that.

Female bomber kills Sunni leader
Also Monday, a female suicide bomber killed a U.S.-backed Sunni leader who formed a group to fight against al-Qaida insurgents in central Iraq after his guards ushered her into the home without searching her.

And a rare suicide car bomb Monday evening in the northern Kurdish city of Sulaimaniyah outside a hotel killed at least two people and injured more than a dozen, hospital officials said.

On Tuesday in the northern city of Mosul, four police officers were killed by gunmen at a checkpoint, a provincial police official said on condition of anonymity as he was not authorized to speak to the media.

© 2008 MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23554710/)

[Nickdfresh]

At war with Sadr again. Are things unravelling?

Iraqi police raid Mehdi Army strongholds

By Ross ColvinWed Mar 12, 11:54 AM ET

Iraqi police raided strongholds of Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army in the southern city of Kut on Wednesday after the militia broke a ceasefire and clashed with security forces a day earlier.

The city's police chief said at least 11 people were killed in Tuesday's gunbattles in which U.S. special forces called in air strikes after Iraqi authorities asked them for help.

With U.S. forces already stretched by an upsurge in violence in Iraq since January, such ceasefire violations are a worrying development. U.S. commanders have credited the ceasefire with sharply reducing sectarian bloodshed that threatened civil war.

But the commanders say security gains can only be cemented by progress towards national reconciliation. Last month parliament passed an amnesty law hailed by Washington as a major step towards healing rifts between Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims.

The law is seen as benefiting many Sunni Arabs held as security detainees. Giving the first figures, President Jalal Talabani's office said 1,293 prisoners had been released as of Wednesday. Iraqi jails hold about 23,000 prisoners.

A day after saying he would quit, the top U.S. commander for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Admiral William Fallon, visited Baghdad. Fallon resigned after a magazine reported he was pushing President George W. Bush to avoid war with Iran.

"He was in Baghdad this morning. As far as we know it was just a regular visit to Baghdad," said U.S. military spokesman Navy Lieutenant Michael Street.

In Kut, police officer Lieutenant-Colonel Sudad Jamil said police had regained control of four districts where the Mehdi Army had a strong presence and were going house-to-house hunting for gunmen who had taken part in Tuesday's fighting.

The largest neighborhood in Kut, al-Jihad, had been sealed off by Iraqi security forces, he said. Residents inside Jihad said Mehdi Army gunmen were everywhere and there were rumors that roadside bombs had been planted in street entrances.

DISTRICTS "PURGED"

"We have purged four neighborhoods and arrested a group of Mehdi Army gunmen, including a senior leader," said another police officer, Lieutenant Aziz al-Amara, who commands a rapid reaction unit.

However, Kut police chief Major-General Abdul-Hanin al-Amara said at a news conference that those detained had told police they belonged to a religious movement, suggesting they were not linked to Sadr. He gave no further details.

The director of Sadr's office in Kut, Abu Sadek insisted the gunmen were "outlaws" with no links to the cleric.

Sadr renewed a six-month ceasefire last month but at the weekend issued a statement telling followers they could defend themselves if attacked. Until Tuesday's fighting, there had been no major violations of the truce.

There were differing accounts of what triggered the clashes. Iraqi police said it started after U.S. and Iraqi forces were dispatched to find a mortar team who had attacked a U.S. military base in the area on Monday night.

The U.S. military said in a statement late on Tuesday that U.S. special forces had come to the aid of an Iraqi security patrol and had been attacked by a large number of "suspected criminal militia fighters."

A health official in Kut, who declined to be named, put the final death toll from Tuesday's clashes at 13, including two policemen, three children and one woman.

Police chief Amara said 11 people were killed and 26 wounded, including five policemen. The reason for the discrepancy was not immediately clear.

The clashes in Kut were the latest in an upsurge in violence across Iraq, including a number of suicide bombings which the U.S. military has blamed on al Qaeda. The military has acknowledged the spike but says it does not represent a trend.

"Even though violence is dramatically reduced from 2006 and 2007 this has unquestionably been a tough few days," U.S. military spokesman Major-General Kevin Bergner told a news conference in Baghdad.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080312/wl_nm/iraq_dc

(Additional reporting by Imad al-Khozaie in Diwaniya, Jaafar al-Taie in Kut, and Ahmed Rasheed, Aseel Kami, Waleed Ibrahim, Paul Tait and Mohammed Abbas in Baghdad; Editing by Keith Weir)

[hideyoursheep]

Thump.

I'll be back later...

[sadaist]

This is definitely another step in the right direction.

"Iraq takes control of Green Zone, US troops"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090102/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq_24

BAGHDAD – The U.S. formally transferred control of the Green Zone to Iraqi authorities Thursday in a pair of ceremonies that also handed back Saddam Hussein's former palace. Iraq's prime minister said he will propose making Jan. 1 a holiday marking the restoration of sovereignty.

Under the new security agreement between Washington and Baghdad to replace a U.N. mandate for foreign troops in Iraq, the Iraqi government also now has control of American troops' actions and of the country's airspace.

The moves came amid a dramatic fall in violence over the past year. However, insurgents still stage daily attacks and could try to expand the fight now that U.S. troops cannot take unilateral action.

Two Iraqi soldiers and three policemen were killed in attacks Thursday. In the northern city of Kirkuk, Iraqi and U.S. troops killed three suspected al-Qaida gunmen during a raid, police said.

Many of the changes inaugurated on New Year's Day won't bring immediately visible results. The Green Zone, the country's government and military command center, remains ringed by concrete blast walls and off limits to most Iraqis. U.S. troops still man its checkpoints, although now as trainers rather than leaders.

But the Americans have moved out of the Republican Palace, the sprawling former headquarters of Saddam's regime that they took over shortly after the 2003 invasion. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki formerly took control of the building Thursday and exulted over the security pact under which U.S. troops are to leave the country by 2012.

"A year ago, the mere thought of forces withdrawing from Iraq was considered a dream," al-Maliki told reporters afterward. "The dream that no one had the right to think about became true."

He called for making Jan. 1 a national holiday called "Sovereignty Day." Iraq already officially observes New Year's Day as a holiday.

Also on Thursday, British troops turned over to Iraqi officials the airport in Basra, the country's second-largest city. Britain says it will withdraw its approximately 4,000 soldiers in Iraq by May 31.

"Iraq is taking another step toward the future, signaling to its citizens and the international community that it is indeed a new day for sovereign Iraq," U.S. Army Col. Steven Ferrari said at a separate ceremony handing over control of the Green Zone.

The Green Zone was the most potent symbol of the U.S. invasion and occupation.

The 4-square-mile area, which nestles into the start of an oxbow bend of the Tigris River, formally is called the International Zone. Sarcastically, it's called "The Bubble" because the foreigners who live and work there often have little contact with the shabby and violent city on the other side of the 13-foot-high, reinforced concrete blast walls around the perimeter.

But the sense of security is only relative. The zone was a favorite target for rockets and mortars fired by insurgents. In 2007, the attacks were so heavy that the U.S. Embassy ordered its workers to wear flak jackets and helmets anywhere outside.

Asked whether insurgents could resume attacks now that the area is under Iraqi control, Ferrari said, "Common sense says they'll probably test the Green Zone."

The walls and the seemingly endless series of checkpoints inside have been worrisomely porous. A suicide bomber attacked the parliament's dining hall in 2007, killing one person. Suicide vests wired with explosives have been found on the grounds.

Although Baghdad is calmer now, the Green Zone is full of unsettling reminders of war. Duck-and-cover bunkers dot sidewalks under lush date palms. Walls bear signs warning drivers not to stop for any reason and frequent speed bumps force vehicles to a near crawl.

Even before U.S. troops took control of the area in 2003 and put up the walls, the neighborhood had an air of intimidation. Saddam and his sons had lavish residences there and motorists who drove through understood they shouldn't stop.

Now, Iraqi officials have their eyes on making the area accessible, inspiring and educational, even though it's not yet clear when they will feel confident enough to take down the walls.

"It depends. There are many steps to take," Iraqi Security Minister Sherwan al-Waili said when asked about prospects for opening the zone.

In July, the National Investment Commission approved plans to build a $100 million luxury hotel in the zone.

And in the next couple of months, the Iraqi High Tribunal plans to open a museum in the zone detailing the brutality of Saddam's regime. It will include a replica of the hole-in-the-ground hideout where Saddam was captured in 2004, two years before he was executed, tribunal head Arif Abdul-Razzak Al-Shaheen told the newspaper Asharq al-Awsat last month.

Violence around Iraq plunged in 2008, with attacks declining to an average of 10 a day from 180 a year ago. The murder rate in November was less than 1 per 100,000 people — far lower than many cities in the world.

U.S. military deaths in Iraq plunged by two-thirds in 2008 from the previous year, a reflection of the improving security following the American counterinsurgency campaign and al-Qaida's slow retreat from the battlefield.

According to a tally by The Associated Press, at least 314 U.S. soldiers died in Iraq during 2008, down from 904 in 2007. In all, at least 4,221 U.S. military personnel have died in Iraq since the war began in 2003

[Sgt Schultz]

http://www.zombietime.com/vi_day/demsquaqmire.jpg
From "Zombietime" Website
http://www.zombietime.com/vi_day/

"By every measure, The United States and coalition forces have conclusively defeated all enemies in Iraq, pacified the country, deposed the previous regime, successfully helped to establish a new functioning democratic government, and suppressed any lingering insurgencies. The war has come to an end. And we won.

The only reason that the war has not been declared "over" is that the media, which was generally opposed to the war and opposed to any of President Bush's policies, doesn't want to give him and his supporters the satisfaction of having been right. The media wants U.S. troops to return home, but only on condition that they do so with their tails between their legs in defeat -- not as victorious liberators, which would invalidate five years of subtle and not-so-subtle anti-war propaganda on the part of the left-leaning media. "

http://www.zombietime.com/vi_day/hires_081031-N-1509W-035a.jpg

[kwame k]

I've been saying it for years........We Won The Fucking War! We lost the occupation......our brave men and women who fought there did exactly what they were supposed to do and did it in record time...........the fucking idiots in this Administration fucked up the occupation........in every possible way. No fault can be put on our troops, they did what they were told to do and did it well.

[knuckleboner]

[QUOTE=Sgt Schultz;1310279
From "Zombietime" Website
http://www.zombietime.com/vi_day/

The only reason that the war has not been declared "over" is that the media, which was generally opposed to the war and opposed to any of President Bush's policies, doesn't want to give him and his supporters the satisfaction of having been right. [/QUOTE]

having been right? about what? that if we killed enough iraqis and if we had enough soldiers killed that the killing would eventually tail off? ok, no problem, if that was the bush administration's strategy, then i'll happily agree that they were right.

however, when the bush administration, itself, admits it made mistakes in iraq (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,242763,00.html) like how many troops should have been sent over in order to deal with the reconstruction, and grossly underestimating the amount of sectarian violence, then i'm probably not going to agree that they were clearly right all along.

unless of course, we get to phrase it, "they were right, after they were wrong." that, i might be ok with.

[Sgt Schultz]

having been right? about what? that if we killed enough iraqis and if we had enough soldiers killed that the killing would eventually tail off? ok, no problem, if that was the bush administration's strategy, then i'll happily agree that they were right.

however, when the bush administration, itself, admits it made mistakes in iraq (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,242763,00.html) like how many troops should have been sent over in order to deal with the reconstruction, and grossly underestimating the amount of sectarian violence, then i'm probably not going to agree that they were clearly right all along.

unless of course, we get to phrase it, "they were right, after they were wrong." that, i might be ok with.

I understand what you are saying but my question is - which war has ever gone according to plan?

People want Bush to admit that "mistakes were made" - fine, but what good does that do? Other than enable Democrats to use it as a negative campaign soundbite.

What matters is the result - and by all measures the U.S has won the war in Iraq.

[knuckleboner]

I understand what you are saying but my question is - which war has ever gone according to plan?

People want Bush to admit that "mistakes were made" - fine, but what good does that do? Other than enable Democrats to use it as a negative campaign soundbite.

What matters is the result - and by all measures the U.S has won the war in Iraq.

fair enough.

though, my problem was more in that editorial's assertion that people don't want to give bush the satisfaction of being right. honestly, i don't think he was correct. the decision to go to war and the way in which the after war was initially handled was incorrect in my opinion.

however, if someone wanted to phrase it that the overall situation is currently improving in iraq, then i'm also ok with that.

and i totally agree that the democrats have focused too much on pointing out the problems with the past decisions (that however right or wrong we can't change) and not focused enough on future actions.

[LoungeMachine]

What matters is the result - and by all measures the U.S has won the war in Iraq.

Really?

Why then is there still 160K ++ combat troops there?

And when did GW declare victory, exactly.

As Commander in Chief, you'd think he would have mentioned this to the world.

And if you think his "Mission Accomplished" photo op in the cod piece 3 miles from San Diego was it........... :confused:

[Sgt Schultz]

fair enough.

though, my problem was more in that editorial's assertion that people don't want to give bush the satisfaction of being right. honestly, i don't think he was correct. the decision to go to war and the way in which the after war was initially handled was incorrect in my opinion.

however, if someone wanted to phrase it that the overall situation is currently improving in iraq, then i'm also ok with that.

and i totally agree that the democrats have focused too much on pointing out the problems with the past decisions (that however right or wrong we can't change) and not focused enough on future actions.

I see what you are saying about editorial's assertion. I think things get confused when you are discussing a) was invading Iraq the "right" thing to do, and, b) has the war been a "success". If someone says "We won in Iraq" they might think they are then automatically saying that they agree with the decision to go to war in the first place which is not the case. You can disagree with the idea of going to war in Iraq, but then still recognize that we won the war in my opinion.

[Sgt Schultz]

Really?

Why then is there still 160K ++ combat troops there?

And when did GW declare victory, exactly.

As Commander in Chief, you'd think he would have mentioned this to the world.

And if you think his "Mission Accomplished" photo op in the cod piece 3 miles from San Diego was it........... :confused:

I think it's silly to think that you can withdraw all forces immediately after the majority of combat operations are concluded. How long and how many U.S. troops remained in the southern U.S. after April of 1865? In Germany, Japan and Korea? In Kosovo?

GW was ridiculed after making a speech in front of the "Mission Accomplished" banner - you think he'd ever declare victory while a single U.S. soldier is still in Iraq (while in office)? Not likely.

[LoungeMachine]

I think it's silly to think that you can withdraw all forces immediately after the majority of combat operations are concluded. How long and how many U.S. troops remained in the southern U.S. after April of 1865? In Germany, Japan and Korea? In Kosovo?

GW was ridiculed after making a speech in front of the "Mission Accomplished" banner - you think he'd ever declare victory while a single U.S. soldier is still in Iraq (while in office)? Not likely.

Once again, you mistake a WAR with an OCCUPATION

And I never said pull out all immediately. Nice strawman there.

YOU posted that by ALL ACCOUNTS we won the war.....

Bullshit statement by all accounts but your's.

:gulp:

[DEMON CUNT]

If the so-called "surge" was an excuse to spend a few extra million dollars in Iraq, then I would have to say that it was a success.

In reality it was a escalation marketed as a surge to the Schlutzs of America. It was Bush sending in more troops to clean up the fucking mess he fucking made.

Schlutz, known plagiarist, was all to happy to suck the propaganda from the baby's bottle and will spit it up when ever he had the chance. See: this thread.

[sadaist]

In reality it was a escalation marketed as a surge to the Schlutzs of America. It was Bush sending in more troops to clean up the fucking mess he fucking made.


May be true. Whatever the reason behind it or how you want to label it, it has made the situation arguably better than had we either stayed with the previous troop level or withdrawn completely. On the bright side, withdrawal seems more viable & likely every day. I really can't wait for this to be something we look back on when we discuss it rather than it being in the present tense.

[LoungeMachine]

We've been paying them [bribing, if you will] not to fight.....

Hate to think about what might happen were we to cut off the money supply.

[hideyoursheep]

I understand what you are saying but my question is - which war has ever gone according to plan?

All of them. Except Vietnam.

You can split cunt hairs over specific battles, the "plan", was to find WMDs that didn't exist. Everything else has been spin.

And cuntinous miscalculations designed to keep boots on ground and KBR right there with them.

But their free ride will soon be over.

[hideyoursheep]

If the so-called "surge" was an excuse to spend a few extra million dollars in Iraq, then I would have to say that it was a success.

If you think about it, CUNT, the under-manned invasion and initial occupation while Iraqis got their fingers dipped in ink was more of a help than the surge.

It almost guaranteed KBR/ Haliburton more time to milk the federal reserve by NOT having a working exit strategy, or troops to help man up the Iraqi military. (which was conveniently disbanded and ignored).

[hideyoursheep]

We've been paying them [bribing, if you will] not to fight......

What are you referring to?

[Nickdfresh]

I understand what you are saying but my question is - which war has ever gone according to plan?

People want Bush to admit that "mistakes were made" - fine, but what good does that do? Other than enable Democrats to use it as a negative campaign soundbite.

What matters is the result - and by all measures the U.S has won the war in Iraq.

Which War even compares to what an abortion this has been?

You can crow about "victories" all you want, but everything that was done during the Surge could have been done shortly after the "end of major combat operations" in 2003 - namely paying off Sunni tribal elders, which is all the surge really is and has been...

The you can tell us why the US-backed "democratic gov't" loves Iran, is based on a militia and propped up by death squads that ethnically cleansed the nation of mixed Sunni-Shia areas in what amounted too a civil war the US was powerless to stop --and they were every bit as bad as the Sunni/Al Qaida of Iraq Resistance/terrorists. How 600,000 people have died in the insecurity wrought by US "victories"

You can also gloat about how the US has created a very pro-Iranian Shia ally in the Iraqi gov't..

Then you can wave the flag over the fact that the trillion$ tossed away to this abortion have effectively damaged the US economy and will probably lead to a faster decline of US power in the world...


BTW, the Surge means nothing, because nothing has been decided in the very polarized Iraq, because our Iraqi "Allies" essentially refuse to power-share with the Sunnis, nor acknowledge their "Awakening" militias and make them part of the gov't "security" forces...

[LoungeMachine]

What are you referring to?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2413200.ece

[hideyoursheep]

What's wrong with that?

[Nickdfresh]

What's wrong with that?

I don't find it "wrong" necessarily. Just idiotic that the US admin only did this after three years, and 4000 lives, later --after the start of the War. Shortly after the US destroyed the Iraqi security forces and liquidated the Army, bringing untold death and destruction to the Iraqi people, US Special Forces soldiers and some farsighted commanders were advocating that we bring the Sunni tribal leaders in on the payroll and not just allow the Shiites to take over everything. Also, it should be mentioned that many of the people receiving our tax $$ have American, and at least some Iraqi, blood on their hands as former guerrillas/insurgents/terrorists/freedom fighters. I don't have a huge problem with this as there are Japanese and Germans that do also. But were weren't running around labelling them all "terrorists" either, and recognized that they had the right to kill US soldiers during WWII under the confines of the Geneva Convention and under the rules of the Law of Land Warfare permit legitimate acts of resistance to an occupation. By labelling insurgents, both in Afghanistan and Iraq, "terrorists" for years --and then turning about and paying them large sums of our tax money to form militias allied with us-- we're setting up a rather interesting CONTRADICTION and unique form of hypocrisy. One ignored by frothing, victory-crowing chickenhawk clowns like (never-been-a)SGT. Shultz...

If it is so great, why don't we just pay off all of the "terrorists" in GITMO? Most of them were captured on the battlefield (but not by Americans by and large) and were not committing acts of terrorism, but were resisting the US invasion of Afghanistan...my point is that these partisan semantics are scary...

What's gauling is that this is presented as some great "victory" achieved merely by adding a few thousand more troops and merely a black and white issue by simpletons like Chewtard who never bother to really read anything critical of their gods Bouche and Tinman...

P.S.- Anyone who is really interested in this subject should read "Fiasco."

[hideyoursheep]

I don't know how many of you might have seen this already, but I'll submit this for anyone who is willing to listen.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6cJlJudDtVE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6cJlJudDtVE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[sadaist]

I don't know how many of you might have seen this already, but I'll submit this for anyone who is willing to listen.


Not that I don't believe what these people are saying, I do. But I don't blame anyone for not allowing this to be shown to Congress. In it's current form, it's just a dozen or so people giving their opinions. To be viable, it needs facts, proof, evidence, anything to back up what these people are claiming. Show some invoices, pay stubs, or contracts. Give something tangible to back up the claims.

[hideyoursheep]

KBR:

Financials (In millions of USD)
Income Statement
Quarterly Annual Annual
(sept. 08) 2007 2006

Total Revenue 3,018.00 8,745.00 8,805.00
Gross Profit 186.00 417.00 365.00
Operating Income 1 44.00 294.00 152.00
Net Income 85.00 85 302.00 168.00







Halliburton has some "other" expenses they don't wish to disclose, but feel free to puke when you see it....

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=HAL&annual

when I post, everything is getting squeezed together...I tried.


:mad:

[hideyoursheep]

I don't find it "wrong" necessarily. Just idiotic that the US admin only did this after three years, and 4000 lives, later --after the start of the War.

P.S.- Anyone who is really interested in this subject should read "Fiasco."

I agree with that take, Nick.

I don't think I want to read that book. It's depressing enough just living
through this "Fiasco".

[hideyoursheep]

I don't call it a "surge", I call it "back peddling".

It shows the world what we already know and what W won't admit; that he was wrong.

It should have been done a long time ago.





If not for those clowns, it wouldn't have needed to be done at all.

[hideyoursheep]

I'm gonna keep rambling...this is for you, sadaist.

I work with a retired 1st sgt. who was in signal. (yeah, that's right, I live in Wilmington Ohio and I work!...that can be another thread, but I doubt any of you are interested)
He told me that all the meals were bought and prepared by civilian contractors (KBR). Back in my day, it was soldiers that were doing that.
He also said that every day, there was such an abundance of food, you had several choices as to what you wanted for every meal.....like your last supper-every day!
I can understand how it would be good for morale, since there's little else to look forward to in Iraq, but it still seems excessive and wasteful....that's just the food end, folks. I don't know how much a civilian employee makes doing that job, but I guaran-damn-tee you it's a lot more that the soldiers who are already deployed.

There's no reason not to believe there's not a lot more waste or gouging going on under the KBR Halliburton umbrella.

[sadaist]

I'm gonna keep rambling...this is for you, sadaist.

I work with a retired 1st sgt. who was in signal. (yeah, that's right, I live in Wilmington Ohio and I work!...that can be another thread, but I doubt any of you are interested)
He told me that all the meals were bought and prepared by civilian contractors (KBR). Back in my day, it was soldiers that were doing that.
He also said that every day, there was such an abundance of food, you had several choices as to what you wanted for every meal.....like your last supper-every day!
I can understand how it would be good for morale, since there's little else to look forward to in Iraq, but it still seems excessive and wasteful....that's just the food end, folks. I don't know how much a civilian employee makes doing that job, but I guaran-damn-tee you it's a lot more that the soldiers who are already deployed.

There's no reason not to believe there's not a lot more waste or gouging going on under the KBR Halliburton umbrella.


I agree with you and what that video clip says. I said that in my first post to it. I was pointing out that the clip lacked the evidence or hard facts required to submit it to Congress. Hopefully those were just small snippets and other parts of it had these things. But this type of spending is not new. Remember the first time you heard about a $500 screwdriver or a $1200 toilet seat? It's sickening.

Tom Brokaw had a great segment on TV each week titled "The Fleecing Of America". The problem is that too many of us watch this, are disgusted by it, then don't do a whole lot about it.