Bomb Iran? U.S. Requests Bunker-Buster Bombs (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3771522&page=1)

Military diplomacy always works better when you're at a heightened state of readiness.

This isn't a begining chicken little, we're a very long way from doing anything to Iran.

We'll let the EU lead this round.

Fandros

Jedd,

I would tend to think this is more for Afghanistan than Iran as the Taliban have their resurgance they like to hide in caves. But honestly I would think a few good men with flamethrowers can do it nicely also.

The article makes a good point about Afghanistan.

Notice the money isn't even for actual bombs, but for equipping B2 Stealth Bombers to carry bunker busters. Why would they need to outfit B2s to carry them if they're just going to the mountains?

USAF has been looking to increase/spread the bombers carrying the Bunker Busters for awhile.

Even so, why would there be an emergency funding request for that right now?

To show just how important and vital the B2s are!

heh L2, you might be more right than any of us know.

The Buffs, B52 , from WW2 are still kicking ass and taking names.

We have to justify the expenditures of the very expensive B2's somehow.

Fandros

In related news, airstrikes (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-10-21-airstrikes_N.htm) in Iraq and Afghanistan are way up this year. Excellent for keeping troops alive of course, but I don't recall it being a part of the counterinsurgency playbook due to collateral damage and civilian fatalities.

I would bet IED's are up as well this year, adding a ton to the collateral damage and civilian fatalities.

In related news, airstrikes (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-10-21-airstrikes_N.htm) in Iraq and Afghanistan are way up this year. Excellent for keeping troops alive of course, but I don't recall it being a part of the counterinsurgency playbook due to collateral damage and civilian fatalities.Of course it's part of the playbook. That's because collateral damage and civilian fatalities is practically nonexistent, and much less than not engaging the islamofascist terrorists.

Right, practically non (http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2560.shtml)-existent (http://itn.co.uk/news/9f4ea7b6f1764debcc5c93668fd95feb.html). Airstrikes are perfectly (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3459086,00.html) safe (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSCOL24813120071023?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews).

Let's see what Petraeus' manual (http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24fd.pdf) says:“An air strike can cause collateral damage that turns people against the host-nation government and provides insurgents with a major propaganda victory. Even when justified under the law of war, bombings that result in civilian casualties can bring media coverage that works to the insurgents’ benefits. … For these reasons, commanders should consider the use of air strikes carefully during [counterinsurgency] operations, neither disregarding them outright nor employing them excessively.
...


F-9. Even in a clear case of taking out an insurgent headquarters or command center, care has to be taken to accomplish the mission while minimizing civilian casualties.That we're attempting to use smaller, more precision guided bombs (also in the playbook) is good news, but there's clearly a civilian toll being taken. And to say that "collateral damage and civilian fatalities is practically nonexistent" is simply laughable. Unfortunately, it's a regular occurence (http://www.slate.com/id/2176464/pagenum/all/).On Sunday, U.S. soldiers were searching for a leader of a kidnapping ring in Baghdad's Sadr City. The soldiers came under fire from a building. Rather than engage in dangerous door-to-door conflict, they called in air support. Army helicopters flew overhead and simply destroyed the building, killing several of the fighters but also at least six innocent civilians.* (http://www.slate.com/id/2176464/pagenum/all/#Correction) (The bad guy got away.)
It's a simple fact that it's easier, and safer, for our troops to call in an airstrike than root out insurgents in an urban environment.

It's a fucking war for god's sake. And we're kicking their ass if you haven't noticed.

Did I say it didn't exist? No, but considering what the alternative is AND considering the unholy amount of kinetic firepower being unleashed at every given moment in Iraq? Yes, for all practical purposes it doesn't.

This spittle you're serving up without context is almost as bad as the AP and Reuters reports groaning that fewer funerals in Iraq are hurting cemetary workers and cab drivers.

It's a fucking war for god's sake. And we're kicking their ass if you haven't noticed.


Umm, the only war I recall being declared was the war on terror, and we are not kicking ass in that regard; considering we were misled into changing our focus and went to Iraq instead of following through in our pursuit of OBL, and that we created by our actions a host of insurgent and terrorist groups in Iraq including AQ in Iraq, I see little evidence of success in our war on terror.

Oh yeah, we did remove Saddam from power and captured him and many of his top men. So what? All that has accomplished so far is removing the sole buffer between Syria and Iran, and further alienating a large segment of the Muslim population. We have demnonstrated to those folks that the U.S. is not really as all powerful as we like to promote; hell, after $5 billion wasted on restoring the electrical grid, which would never have been destroyed if we had planned this out further, people are still lucky to see more than a few hours of electricity a day, if that.

Bush and Cheney have mis-used and abused our troops chasing their own agendas rather than chasing our real enemies. The actions of these two far out-weigh getting head from an intern, yet people keep drooling and sucking up to them, and our country keeps going further and further downhill. It seems not a day goes by anymore that there is not a new reason to be disgusted by this team.

Bush and Cheney are responsible for over 3000 soldiers lives that were given for their country; those lives were sacrificed for the Bush and Cheney goals, and not for the better interests of the U.S., and that is what really gets me pissed off.

We screwed up in one simple regard and have since the 40's.

We should only go to war to finish them, not win hearts.

Bomb the cities they use as human shields and they'll no longer have the power of insurgency.

Fuck being kind and cute, get it over with dammit.

:(

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7N93xJgEqY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0VQAj1347Y

Did I say it didn't exist? No, but considering what the alternative is AND considering the unholy amount of kinetic firepower being unleashed at every given moment in Iraq? Yes, for all practical purposes it doesn't.
Laughable. We're blowing up lots of shit and if we didn't it would be bad, therefore "collateral damage and civilian fatalities is practically nonexistent." Logic, Bush style.

This spittle you're serving up without context is almost as bad as the AP and Reuters reports groaning that fewer funerals in Iraq are hurting cemetary workers and cab drivers.Without context? Right, let's talk context. We won in Afghanistan, and now it's falling apart as the Taliban resurges. In Iraq, the entire point of the surge -- the point of "kicking their asses" -- was for political stability to take hold, and that's not happening either. Blowing up more Islamofascist blahblahblahs (an appellation devoid of that context you're begging for) only breeds more of them, and has been since this whole fiasco started.

Spittle? You're soaking in it, or whatever that pool is you're lapping up from Bush/Cheney's feet.

We're blowing up lots of shit and if we didn't it would be bad, therefore "collateral damage and civilian fatalities is practically nonexistent." Logic, Bush style. Yup. Deny it all you like, we're winning in Iraq. Keep on reading those UN reports that would rather condemn the US while ignoring all the other real tragedies in the world, some of which are committed by the same people who paid for that report.

We won in Afghanistan, and now it's falling apart as the Taliban resurges. Taliban has been resurging since 2002. That's going about as well as that Afghanistan Winter we've been waiting on.

the point of "kicking their asses" -- was for political stability to take hold, and that's not happening either. Wow! One full month of decent stability, let's give up already.

Blowing up more Islamofascist ... only breeds more of them How does killing them make fewer Islmaofascists? You must have meant something more intelligent.

Yup. Deny it all you like, we're winning in Iraq. Keep on reading those UN reports that would rather condemn the US while ignoring all the other real tragedies in the world, some of which are committed by the same people who paid for that report.Such as?

Winning? Neither you nor Bush can even tell what we're fighting for, what counts as winning. "Mission Accomplished" was how many years ago? How are US fatalities this year compared to last? How's that government reconciliation going?
Taliban has been resurging since 2002. That's going about as well as that Afghanistan Winter we've been waiting on.Clearly you've been partaking of the Afghan bumper crop.
Wow! One full month of decent stability, let's give up already.1 month in 55. What fantastic news. We must have turned a corner into a sign of progress or something. Time to come home, right?
How does killing them make fewer Islmaofascists? You must have meant something more intelligent.How does killing make fewer? You set the bar pretty low on what qualifies as "more intelligent." Brain too full of talking points and scare words to figure out whether you're mocking my point or your own.

In any case, I'm not much concerned about judgements of intelligence from someone who thinks that air strikes result in "practically nonexistent" civilian casualties. Perhaps you missed the part in Petreaus' own counterinsurgency guide where "bombings that result in civilian casualties can bring media coverage that works to the insurgents’ benefits." Perhaps you missed the repeated statements by our own military leaders that our presence in Iraq and our fight against its various insurgent parties encourages others to join the cause.

Three years after the insurgency was in its "last throes" the fight goes on, intensely, and you can't figure out that our very presence is an instigating factor in the various insurgent movements. But hey, what's a few more hundred dead soldiers and another hundred billion dollars so long as you're not wetting the bed with nightmares of the Ismolamofastics coming to get you.

I can't understand how anyone still honestly believes that the "War on Terror" and the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan are related in anything but press releases. We have Pentagon documents from before 9/11 talking about instituting "regime change" in every nation we wanted oil pipelines through, built our installations in the two we actually invaded around protecting said pipeline, and clearly have nothing resembling a plan more concrete that "shoot more Arabs" as the way out of it and the number of Arabs shot being our only apparent metric of success.

Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled shouting matches.

Killing AQs in Iraq is good, but does nothing to help our long run causes.

Saying AQ is done in Iraq and we won, thats laughable. The nation is broken. 130,000 US troops is the only thing holding the pieces together. AQ still has its pipelines in through Syria and Iran wide open, it still has its outside leadership intact, it still has money weapons and growing numbers of recruits. They are still around... waiting. They have one weapon they know we do not..... Time.

Iraq is a virtually ethnically cleansed nation. Neighborhoods are marked by checkpoints and roadblocks. Iraq has achieved sectarian security rather than national security.. that is not a good thing. There is no tie to the national government, there is no need for the national government, there is nothing keeping these factions together, there is no group Social Contract for them to invest in. To them, the federal government is no more than an entity looking to divide up oil profits. What other purpose does it serve?

Once we leave the real killing will begin... either in 10 days or 10 years.. it will make no difference... and then, Al Queda will be ready to worm its way back in.

Once we leave the real killing will begin... either in 10 days or 10 years.. it will make no difference... and then, Al Queda will be ready to worm its way back in.AQ has only had a foothold in Iraq, and I doubt that will change if/when we depart. The Shiites and Kurds have no reason to like AQ, and local Sunni tribes have shown a willingness to kill them along with anyone else. And if AQ attempts to flex what muscle it has, local entities will quash them. There's always a chance that AQ will grease the right palms, but that seems likely only to generate tolerance rather than influence. The departure of US forces seems more likely to degrade their presence.

The popular assumption is that withdrawal of US forces will lead to a bloodbath. This may be the case, but it's not necessarily the case. We're a crutch. Remove the crutch, and it's up to the patient whether to stand or fall.

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/resistance-is-futile.htm

A gulf. A gap. A chasm. A parallel universe.

All describe the bizarro-world contrast between what most Americans seem to think is happening in Iraq versus what is really happening in Iraq. Knowing this disconnect exists and experiencing it directly are two separate matters. It’s like the difference between holding the remote control during the telecast of a volcanic eruption on some distant island (and then flipping the channel), versus running for survival from a wretch of molten lava that just engulfed your car.

I was at home in the United States just one day before the magnitude hit me like vertigo: America seems to be under a glass dome which allows few hard facts from the field to filter in unless they are attached to a string of false assumptions. Considering that my trip home coincided with General Petraeus’ testimony before the US Congress, when media interest in the war was (I’m told) unusually concentrated, it’s a wonder my eardrums didn’t burst on the trip back to Iraq. In places like Singapore, Indonesia, and Britain people hardly seemed to notice that success is being achieved in Iraq, while in the United States, Britney was competing for airtime with O.J. in one of the saddest sideshows on Earth.

No thinking person would look at last year’s weather reports to judge whether it will rain today, yet we do something similar with Iraq news. The situation in Iraq has drastically changed, but the inertia of bad news leaves many convinced that the mission has failed beyond recovery, that all Iraqis are engaged in sectarian violence, or are waiting for us to leave so they can crush their neighbors. This view allows our soldiers two possible roles: either “victim caught in the crossfire” or “referee between warring parties.” Neither, rightly, is tolerable to the American or British public.

Today I am in Iraq, back in a war of such strategic consequence that it will affect generations yet unborn—whether or not they want it to. Hiding under the covers will not work, because whether it is good news or bad, whether it is true or untrue, once information is widely circulated, it has such formidable inertia that public opinion seems impervious to the corrective balm of simple and clear facts.

Anyone who has been in Iraq for longer than a few months, visited a handful of provinces, and spoken with a good number of Iraqis, likely would acknowledge that the reality here is complex and dynamic. But in the last six months it also has been increasingly hopeful, despite what the pessimistic dogma dome allows Americans and British to believe.

...

No one who’s actually been to this area in the last month could honestly claim it was swarming with violence. I’ve been with the Brits here for more than two weeks, during which time there have been only a few trivial attacks that could easily have been the work of an angry farmer with extra time on his hands and a mortar in his backyard. As to serious attacks on British forces, in the last eight weeks, there have been exactly zero. So, any stories that make it sound like Basra is in chaos are shamefully false.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119283901152765565.html

These people are not suggesting that the battle is over. They all insist that there is a lot of fighting ahead, and even those who believe that al Qaeda is crashing and burning in a death spiral on the Iraqi battlefields say that the surviving terrorists will still be able to kill coalition forces and Iraqis. But there is relative tranquility across vast areas of Iraq, even in places that had been all but given up for lost barely more than a year ago. It may well be that those who confidently declared the war definitively lost will have to reconsider.

Okay, let's quote people now.
Soldiers (http://forums.ayonae.ro/showthread.php?t=9727), a couple of whom have now died in the war:VIEWED from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day. (Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.) And so on.

More recently, army captains speak (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/15/AR2007101500841.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) on the war:The inability to govern is exacerbated at all levels by widespread corruption. Transparency International (http://www.transparency.org/publications/gcr) ranks Iraq as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. And, indeed, many of us witnessed the exploitation of U.S. tax dollars by Iraqi officials and military officers. Sabotage and graft have had a particularly deleterious impact on Iraq's oil industry, which still fails to produce the revenue that Pentagon war planners hoped would pay for Iraq's reconstruction. Yet holding people accountable has proved difficult. The first commissioner of a panel charged with preventing and investigating corruption resigned last month, citing pressure from the government and threats on his life.I quote this part since Maliki has now declared that all corruption investigations must be cleared through him. Very convenient, that.

Michael Yon has been optimistic about Iraq for quite awhile now, even when acknowledging (http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/back-to-war.htm) that Iraq is in civil war. I don't know that the two week period of peace he mentions is a very good barometer (especially as it overlaps Ramadan), and other sources contradict (http://www.bordermail.com.au/news/bm/columns/982734.html) the idea of subdued situation.There are 5500 British troops in Iraq, by far the largest foreign army after the Americans, but they control almost nothing except the ground they are standing on. Five hundred are under permanent siege in Basra Palace, in the middle of Iraq’s second-biggest city, and the rest are at the airport outside of town, under constant attack by rocket and mortar fire.
They have almost no influence over the three rival Shia militias and the associated criminals who actually run the city and fight over the large sums of money to be made from stolen oil. Forty-one British soldiers have died in Iraq already this year, compared with 29 in the whole of last year. Of course, southern Iraq has long been more peaceful compared to the more sectarian central region where most negative news originates.

But all this misses the point made previously about enduring political instability, severe corruption through all levels of what is passing for a government (I mean the one in Iraq), and how political and sectarian factions continue to refuse to get along.

Basic lay of the land things here.

This is at its heart, a struggle between the Sunni and Shia people of Iraq.

Iran is going to support, foster and encourage a Shia government to come into being. They will absolutely try to export their revolution in Iraq. Iran is the major problem.
The Shia people with Iranian backing will have a significant advantage and as the government moves more theocratic, the more threated the Sunni population of Iraq will be.

In order to counteract Iranian Shia influence, the Iraqi Sunnis are going to look for their own foreign backers to level the playing field. They will naturally turn to Saudi Arabian interests. That means AlQueda in the back door, again.
It can play out no other way. Iraq's neighbors are not going to leave it alone. It is too tempting of a prize. Control of Iraq turns Iran into a world power. Arabs need Iraq as strongly Sunni to prevent a Shia crescent from spreading into their sphere of influence.
And we have to leave.

but Iran will always be next door.

I can see why Bush and company want to act against Iran. A stable Iraq is impossible without a docile Iran.

The question need to ask ourselves is how high a price are we willing to pay for Iraq? Because Iranian determination makes it a very big ticket item.

This is at its heart, a struggle between the Sunni and Shia people of Iraq.

The Shia people with Iranian backing will have a significant advantage and as the government moves more theocratic, the more threated the Sunni population of Iraq will be.

In order to counteract Iranian Shia influence, the Iraqi Sunnis are going to look for their own foreign backers to level the playing field. They will naturally turn to Saudi Arabian interests.

Saudi Arabia and Egypt are going to have to get involved, and the reason they have not done so already is that they have Bush as a puppet, doing the job for them. We are squandering the lives of young men and women of America so that the Saudi and Egyptian populations and military will not have to do the work. Ironic that it was citizens of those countries that attacked the US, and now we are their proxy fighting force.

Everything the West has done in the region is based on oil, pure and simple. Everything that the varied leaders of the countries and religious sects and terrorist groups do is based on their religion, and which sect with which they identify. The failure to even attempt to understand the religion and culture and traditions of the area is one of the most glaring errors of the entire campaign, and that not only is an indictment of the Bush administration but also of the military command that failed to learn from the lessons taught in the Viet Nam conflict.

There is going to be conflict in the Middle East, and it is regrettable that our President would rather have the casualties be of our people, than letting those who live there suffer them.

I wonder how much further we would have progressed with those 130,000 troops in Afghanistan chasing down OBL and his cadre.

The most notable aspect of this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/26/AR2007102602402.html) isn't soldier disgruntlement or reports of Iraqi police corruption but the success of ethnic cleansing in Sadiyah.

American soldiers estimate that since violence intensified this year, half of the families in Sadiyah have fled, leaving approximately 100,000 people. After they left, insurgents and militiamen used their abandoned homes to hold meetings and store weapons. The neighborhood deteriorated so quickly that many residents came to believe neither U.S. nor Iraqi security forces could stop it happening.

The descent of Sadiyah followed a now-familiar pattern in Baghdad. In response to suicide bombings blamed on Sunni insurgent groups such as al-Qaeda in Iraq (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Al+Qaeda+in+Iraq?tid=informline), the Shiite militias, particularly the Mahdi Army (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/al-Mahdi+Army?tid=informline), went from house to house killing and intimidating Sunni families. In many formerly mixed neighborhoods of Baghdad, such as al-Amil and Bayaa, Shiites have become the dominant sect, with their militias the most powerful force.

"It's just a slow, somewhat government-supported sectarian cleansing," said Maj. Eric Timmerman, the battalion's operations officer. Sectarian violence has subsided largely because one side kicked out the other and killed those who remained. This further illustrates that the bloodbath that we're warned would take place if the US leaves is, in fact, already taking place.

Latest CBO cost projections (http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2007/10/24/afx4256132.html).

At least they didn't explode.....
/ducks

The mysterious "mass suicide" of 152 dolphins washed up on Iran's coast over the past month has alarmed environmentalists, with the blame pointed at regional fishing practices, officials said on Monday.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/iranenvironmentpollutionfishing;_ylt=Agp4JKcwuTXw3 zs_D3lx64UDW7oF

Will our soldiers do this in Iran? (first link is a news video that is very interesting)

http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=...a-a2eb710be4dc (http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-US&brand=msnbc&vid=4c3af3a0-b29b-4a15-830a-a2eb710be4dc)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tVTjEbwMro
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CN3PTgNk3gI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUg-bdE7M70
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJgkWoliYW4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TQdgyEapvw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y279RSwi7jA (british troops but still)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXzpUawlEGQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3imI6w5V6HU



The truth about what Bush has done wrong, and what he is continuing to do wrong in going to Iran.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7N93xJgEqY


The man that should have led our country... Would we have been in this mess if he was our president?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjYYz2Jv2QY

-Edit- - Changed my text for Ail to be more on topic since i lose rep in his eyes for being off topic.

I think the majority of the country would agree with you Jedd and are disgusted. Its just a problem of education and apathy. Sadly though, there's still a quarter of this country that either don't know or don't care. I think what sucks is that it took 4 years too many for everyone to wake the fuck up and figure out whats going on.

Change teh post for + rep?

Yeah, that hot....:rolleyes:


There will always be a portion of the populace that will not know/care about any given situation that does not directly affect them.
Given the explosion of the "I" and "Me"generation, I'm not suprised.

Byl, you are correct, those troops could have been better used for finding the real enemy of the U.S.

>>Byl, you are correct, those troops could have been better used for finding the real enemy of the U.S.<<

Like the Boston Fans!

Okay, let's quote people now.
Soldiers, a couple of whom have now died in the war:Read this or just watch the 2nd video:

http://www.outsidethewire.com/blog/media/outside-the-wire--the-lost-episodes.html

Or, if you actually do read Yon, you would already know this...

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmZiYjIyNjQ1MmUxNzJiN2UyMGI5ZjU2MTk5YjdjNDY=

I recall times when mainstream reporters flitted from soldier to soldier doing what I call “opinion shopping.” A variation on this theme would be the more typical tactic of asking a retired general or a newly minted private to render an opinion on a tactical or strategic matter, about certain salient points with which they couldn’t possibly be well acquainted.

But here is a hint to journalists who are seeking truth — good or bad. There is one group of officers whose input has invariably proved both relevant and revelatory for me in compiling my work: battalion commanders who are commanding infantry or special operations units. Special operations people are unlikely to go on record, but the special operations people that I’ve talked with tend to be very knowledgeable and frank, and their input on background is critical. As for the infantry battalion commanders, they are the proverbial sweet spot. Battalion command sergeant majors can be excellent, too, but they often will not go on record. Battalion commanders will tend to be willing to go on record, and will tend to talk to journalists.

It’s important to understand why I think battalion commanders — especially infantry commanders — are the best bet for unmitigated truth coming from just the right places on the ground; they are the best bet because they have SA: Situational Awareness. Good journalists don’t go around interviewing privates and young sergeants about strategic situations because privates and young sergeants don’t know what they are talking about. I know. I was both.

Also, you don’t want to rely heavily on people who are too high ranking, because they can be too politically compromised.

Discerning which officers to talk to is rather like the story of the three bears: Some beds are too big, some beds are too small, but one bed is just right. For this report, the fairy tale translates into something like this: company commander (captain; too small for purposes of the upcoming report); battalion command (lieutenant colonel; just right); brigade commander (colonel; getting too large, but usually is also a good interview); division commander (major general; too large).

The “just right” place is battalion commander, or “BC.” The BC typically will interact with Iraqis six to seven days per week. The BC will be outside the base and downtown just about daily, so he is not insulated. He is interacting, but he also is exposed to higher-level information and goings-on. An infantry BC might command about 700 soldiers, and his responsibilities are vast because they begin and end with life and death. A BC will see Iraqis get killed due to policy decisions, and moreover he will see his own people get injured or killed. Any BC who had tolerance for B.S.before the war tends to have it sandblasted away. Being in combat personally, and having to explain to parents at home why their son or daughter was injured or killed, can have that abrasive effect.

The BCs are vetted and tend to be exceptional individuals with exceptional SA about their particular battle-space. It usually doesn’t take long to register the reasons these seasoned individuals were chosen for the BC position. Most of the BCs I’ve encountered are 40-45 years old. They’ve done multiple combat tours and lived around the world, so their bigger picture has matured into a broader context. Iraq is often not their defining moment, but more a whistle stop.

Michael Yon has been optimistic about Iraq for quite awhile now, even when acknowledging that Iraq is in civil war.Nice try, but Yon was one of the first journalists to call Iraq a civil war and it wasn't until after Petraeus took over did he start seeing anything remotely optimistic about the country. His optimism has now increased, especially considering since everytime we've had good news out of Iraq it has gone to shit shortly thereafter.

But all this misses the point made previously about enduring political instability, severe corruption through all levels of what is passing for a government (I mean the one in Iraq), and how political and sectarian factions continue to refuse to get along.There's always going to be some asshat willing to blow himself up to reach the promised virgins. And Iraq has always been corrupted.

Throw a dart at a world map and chances are you'll hit a country just as corrupted or worse than Iraq is. The difference is, will you hear about it? Five years ago, while the world powers were sucking at the nipple of Saddam's oil money, you didn't hear anything about this political corruption but it was obviously even worse.

Or just visit Pakistan to get perspective? http://www.newsweek.com/id/57485

Can we have the goal posts back for the game please?

Sunni and Shia not getting along? Say it ain't so.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Nathan+Ritzo%3a+%27Taji+Awak ening%27+proof+the+surge+is+helping+Iraqis&articleId=b853cbe7-496a-4e39-ae19-c3719d95c631

"(The Taji Awakening) involves all the sheiks (in Taji), both Sunni and Shi'a. Over the period of four weeks now, it has gathered momentum," Burke said. "The movement here has become dynamic."

He said that the largest gathering of Sunni and Shi'a sheiks in Iraq occurred on Aug. 20 in the Taji area and that the terrorist forces in the area are now "on the run" because of the sectarian reconciliation. As a result, the overall quality of life in rural North Baghdad Province has improved, with marketplaces "flourishing" and critical infrastructure needs being met, according to Burke.

Col. Mike Bridges, who heads up the governance section of the EPRT, concurs with Burke that progress has been made, but specifies that the reconciliation starts at the local level. "It really did start with our brigade commander's philosophy in engaging the senior tribal sheiks," said Bridges.Meanwhile, while you accuse me of reciting talking points, I'm at least reading varying politically leaning sources. Newsweek above and this Reason link... Correct me if I'm wrong, I think you've only referenced a conservative source once. I'd love to see you read a Weekly Standard or National Review article http://www.ayonae.ro/images/smilies/tongue.gif

http://www.reason.com/news/show/123195.html (sorry, the Prospect link is dead, but this is good enough...)

The country is whole. It has embraced the ballot box. It has created a fair and popular constitution. It has avoided all-out civil war. It has not been taken over by Iran. It has put an end to Kurdish and marsh Arab genocide, and anti-Shia apartheid. It has rejected mass revenge against the Sunnis. As shown in the great national votes of 2005 and the noisy celebrations of the Iraq football team's success in July, Iraq survived the Saddam Hussein era with a sense of national unity; even the Kurds—whose reluctant commitment to autonomy rather than full independence is in no danger of changing—celebrated. Iraq's condition has not caused a sectarian apocalypse across the region. The country has ceased to be a threat to the world or its region.

Good article on the Batallion Commanders. They are often overlooked as a good source of unbiased info of what's happening on the battlefield.


Iraq survived the Saddam Hussein era with a sense of national unity; even the Kurds—whose reluctant commitment to autonomy rather than full independence is in no danger of changing—celebrated. Iraq's condition has not caused a sectarian apocalypse across the region. The country has ceased to be a threat to the world or its region.
All of which probably scares the bejeesus out of Iran.

I mean if the populace decides that being a moderate Islamic nation is better than the current extremist government calling the shots, the Mullahs and Ayatollahs will have no place to peddle their hate/fear.
Seeing the differing factions in Iraq come together in a sort of national unity, probably makes Ahmadinnerjacket wet his bed in the night....

All of which probably scares the bejeesus out of Iran.

I mean if the populace decides that being a moderate Islamic nation is better than the current extremist government calling the shots, the Mullahs and Ayatollahs will have no place to peddle their hate/fear.
Seeing the differing factions in Iraq come together in a sort of national unity, probably makes Ahmadinnerjacket wet his bed in the night....

Coming off a Revolution, not yet knowing who would support the new government and who would not, Iranians united to defend their country against Sadaam. If anything the Iranian government is pleased with what is going on right now. Iranians will simply Unite as the pressure is piled on their country. Anyone who knows the region cannot deny that there will be a different response in Iran then there was in Iraq.

Now if there was no threat from outside against Iran, yes there is a good chance that in time the people would move towards defanging their leader and making a change. However this will not happen while a exterior threat lingers over their country.

Read this or just watch the 2nd video:

http://www.outsidethewire.com/blog/...t-episodes.htmlRead it, watched the vid, and I have no idea why you find this so impressive, especially when your own Yon quote includes Good journalists don’t go around interviewing privates ...And Yon seems guilty of the very opinion shopping he disparages -- it practically defines the quoted graf. Avoid these people, go to these people. Of course, my examples didn't involve the media "shopping" for soldiers -- rather, they were soldiers who presented their view in the media.
Throw a dart at a world map and chances are you'll hit a country just as corrupted or worse than Iraq is. The difference is, will you hear about it? Five years ago, while the world powers were sucking at the nipple of Saddam's oil money, you didn't hear anything about this political corruption but it was obviously even worse.And how many of those countries have we invaded, currently have troops in, and are draining hundreds of billions of dollars out of our own ruptured nipples? Can't believe you bothered writing this.
Can we have the goal posts back for the game please?You mean the posts that have moved ever backward in completing the mission? Hell, I remember you crowing about massive troop drawdowns a couple years ago. How's that coming along?
Sunni and Shia not getting along? Say it ain't so.It's great that a section of Baghdad has a number of sheiks from the two sides getting along. Unfortunately, the region has already suffered and continues to suffer substantial ethnic cleansing. This is also irrelevent to the primary point: political reconciliation among political leaders (those guys actually in the government) isn't happening. Military success without a government capable of actually governing just doesn't amount to much except our being there forever.
Meanwhile, while you accuse me of reciting talking points, I'm at least reading varying politically leaning sources. Newsweek above and this Reason link... Correct me if I'm wrong, I think you've only referenced a conservative source once. I'd love to see you read a Weekly Standard or National Review article Like Michael Yon, I prefer referencing people who know what they're talking about. Or, when possible, primary sources. As for this:The country is whole. It has embraced the ballot box. It has created a fair and popular constitution. It has avoided all-out civil war. It has not been taken over by Iran. It has put an end to Kurdish and marsh Arab genocide, and anti-Shia apartheid. It has rejected mass revenge against the Sunnis. As shown in the great national votes of 2005 and the noisy celebrations of the Iraq football team's success in July, Iraq survived the Saddam Hussein era with a sense of national unity; even the Kurds—whose reluctant commitment to autonomy rather than full independence is in no danger of changing—celebrated. Iraq's condition has not caused a sectarian apocalypse across the region. The country has ceased to be a threat to the world or its region. I'm not sure what their definition of all out civil war is, but we both agree that civil war is on, and if it's not "all out" it's onlydue to US troops getting between the various parties. Was overt takeover by Iran even a concern to anyone? As it stands, the Iranian government has influence upon the Shiite leadership (like, say, Maliki). Kurdish genocide (and marsh Arab) genocide (the kind of thing that happened when Saddam was a friend) were already inhibited by the post Gulf War state of affairs. Mass revenge against the Sunnis rejected? Only very early on -- ethnic cleansing and mass refugee movement says otherwise. And Iraq hasn't been a serious threat since 1990.

On the plus side, Doherty's article also included this:War is not just a policy tool whose propriety can be judged by a bare measure of “well, it accomplished what it set out to do.” It’s a terrible bloody mess that can only be justified under very stringent circumstances of retaliation or defense, and even if someday soon the number of maniacs blowing themselves and others up over there becomes low enough that no one is alarmed, that isn’t sufficient to justify the invasion and occupation.Wise words.

So no, I don't see the political situation resolving, violence has calmed in large part because ethnic cleansing programs have been successful, over 2 million refugees have more to worry about than embracing ballot boxes (which I hope aren't electrically powered given Baghdad's continued infrastructure issues) and I disagree with the idea of sinking another trillion dollars into this debacle.

Coming off a Revolution, not yet knowing who would support the new government and who would not, Iranians united to defend their country against Sadaam. If anything the Iranian government is pleased with what is going on right now. Iranians will simply Unite as the pressure is piled on their country. Anyone who knows the region cannot deny that there will be a different response in Iran then there was in Iraq.

Now if there was no threat from outside against Iran, yes there is a good chance that in time the people would move towards defanging their leader and making a change. However this will not happen while a exterior threat lingers over their country.

Unfortunately, our leadership has shown an intense lack of any ability to study such history, and grasp the potential affect; Bush was probably too busy with his partying those days to read a simple newspaper article and see what was happening over there, and Cheney of course was busy filling his pockets with money from the country he so wants to attack now.

Iranians are indeed a fiercely nationalistic people, and any overt attack against them would unite those factions that could better be left to go on with their measured approach to a more democratic society. Ahmanutjob is doing a good enough job of upsetting his constituents that they will eventually take action, either at the polls or in the streets........if only Bush and Cheney don't fuck it up.

October 30, 2007, GAO report (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08231t.pdf). From introduction and conclusion:U.S. efforts lack strategies with clear purpose, scope, roles, and performance measures. The U.S. strategy for victory in Iraq partially identifies the agencies responsible for implementing key aspects of the strategy and does not fully address how the United States would integrate its goals with those of the Iraqis and the international community. U.S. efforts to develop Iraqi ministry capability lack an overall strategy, no lead agency provides overall direction, and U.S. priorities have been subject to numerous changes. The weaknesses in U.S. strategic planning are compounded by the Iraqi government’s lack of integrated strategic planning in its critical energy sector.
...
As this committee is called upon to provide more resources to help stabilize and rebuild Iraq, continued oversight is needed of the key issues highlighted in today’s testimony. While U.S. troops have performed courageously under difficult and dangerous circumstances, the continued violence and polarization of Iraqi society as well as the Iraqi government’s
continued difficulties in funding its reconstruction needs diminishes the prospects for achieving current U.S. security, political, and economic goals in Iraq.

Of particular concern is the lack of strategic plans to guide U.S. and Iraqi efforts to rebuild and stabilize the country. Our assessment of the U.S. strategy for Iraq and recent efforts to build central ministry capacity show that U.S. planning efforts have been plagued by unclear goals and objectives, changing priorities, inadequate risk assessments, and uncertain costs. Weaknesses in U.S. strategic planning are compounded by the lack of strategic planning in Iraq’s energy sector, the sector that provides the most government revenues. And something I found a bit startling, though not entirely surprising given the circumstances:According to the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, the Iraqi National Police is not viable and should be disbanded. I'm not sure what the alternative would be, however. There has to be something Iraq-centric in place to fill the policing role.