1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

Status in Iraq

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by irvin88, Mar 26, 2009.

  1. irvin88

    irvin88 Active Member

    1,668 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Bush's 'folly' is ending in victory
    By Jeff Jacoby Globe Columnist / March 25, 2009


    'MARKETS without bombs. Hummers without guns. Ice cream after dark. Busy streets without fear." So began Terry McCarthy's report from Iraq for ABC's World News Sunday on March 15, one of a series the network aired last week as the war in Iraq reached its sixth anniversary.


    A nationwide poll of Iraqis reveals that "60 percent expect things to get better next year - almost three times as many as a year and a half ago," McCarthy continued. "Iraqis are slowly discovering they have a future. We flew south to Basra, where 94 percent say their lives are going well. Oil is plentiful here. So is money."

    In another report two nights later, ABC's correspondent characterized the Iraqi capital as "a city reborn: speed, light, style - this is Baghdad today. Where car bombs have given way to car racing. Where a once-looted museum has been restored and reopened. And where young women who were forced to cover their heads can again wear the clothes that they like."

    One such young woman is dental student Hiba al-Jassin, who fled Baghdad's horrific violence two years ago, but found the city transformed when she returned last fall. "I'm just optimistic," she told McCarthy. "I think we are on the right path."



    For a long time the foes of both the Iraq war and the president who launched it insisted that none of this was possible - that the war was lost, that there was no military solution to the sectarian slaughter, that the surge would only make the violence worse. Victory was not an option, the critics declared; the only option was to partition Iraq and get out. Time and again it was said that the war would forever be remembered as Bush's folly, if not indeed as the worst foreign policy mistake in US history.

    Even now, with a stubbornness born of partisan hostility or political ideology, there are those who cannot bring themselves to utter the words "victory" and "Iraq" in the same sentence. But six years after the war began, it is ending in victory. As in every war, the price of that victory was higher than we would have wished. The price of defeat would have been far higher.

    ABC wasn't alone in conveying the latest glad tidings from Iraq.

    "Iraq combat deaths at 6-year low," USA Today reported on its front page last Wednesday. The story noted that in the first two months of 2009, 15 US soldiers were killed in action - one-fourth the number killed in the same period a year ago, and one-tenth the 2007 toll. The reduction in deaths reflects the reduction in violence, which has plummeted by 90 percent since former President Bush ordered General David Petraeus to implement a new counterinsurgency strategy - the "surge" - in early 2007. Even in northern Iraq, where al-Qaeda is still active, attacks are down by 70 percent.

    In the wake of improved security have come political reconciliation and compromise. Iraq's democratic government continues to mature, with ethnic and religious loyalties beginning to yield to broader political concerns.

    The Washington Post reports that the country's foremost Shiite politician, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, has formed an alliance with Saleh al-Mutlak, an outspoken Sunni leader. It is a development that suggests "the emergence of a new axis of power in Iraq centered on a strong central government and nationalism" - a dramatic change from the sectarian passions that fueled so much bloody agony in 2006 and 2007. In the recent provincial elections, writes the Post's Anthony Shadid, Maliki's party won major gains, with the prime minister "forgoing the slogans of his Islamist past for a platform of law and order." Despite his erstwhile reputation as a Shiite hard-liner, Maliki now echoes Mutlak's call for burying the hatchet with supporters of Saddam Hussein's overwhelmingly Sunni Baath Party.

    Those elections were yet another blow to the conviction that constitutional democracy and Arab culture are incompatible. For the 440 seats to be filled, more than 14,000 candidates and some 400 political parties contended - a level of democratic competition that leaves American elections in the dust. A Jeffersonian republic of yeoman smallholders Iraq will never be. But over the past six years it has been transformed from one of the most brutal tyrannies on earth to an example of democratic pluralism in the heart of the Arab world.
  2. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    75,409 Messages
    1,881 Likes Received
    So in other words there is now a future in Iraq where once there was none? Good job troops!!!!
  3. ShiningStar

    ShiningStar Well-Known Member

    6,167 Messages
    518 Likes Received
    what, you mean i was right when i kept saying our soliders were doing good in Iraq, I find that hard to believe, the media is not reporting it. Dang thinkers and their brains.
  4. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    75,409 Messages
    1,881 Likes Received
    The liberal media does not care about success in Iraq, if there is bad news to report they will be all over it but seldom do they report of the successes that have taken place
  5. ABQCOWBOY

    ABQCOWBOY Moderator Staff Member

    34,370 Messages
    1,401 Likes Received
    The Bush Administration will never receive credit for what has been accomplished in Iraq. That's unfortunate. It just amazes me how difficult it seems to be for the Left to give him any reasonable consideration.

    It is what it is. No sense crying over it I suppose.
  6. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    75,409 Messages
    1,881 Likes Received
    Never is a long time. History down the line may very well recognize the importance of a free and democratic nation is a volatile region such as the Middle East.
  7. CowboyWay

    CowboyWay If Coach would have put me in, we'd a won State

    4,171 Messages
    31 Likes Received
    Of course they do. There is a new Prez in America who has said he wants to bring the troops out. Of course they think its going to be better in a year. DUH !!!





    C'mon ABQ. You know nobody will be able to judge this war until we're completely out. I'd say 5-10 years after we're completely out. We don't know whats going to happen once we leave. My guess is they will topple whatever regime we helped create and do their own thing.
  8. ABQCOWBOY

    ABQCOWBOY Moderator Staff Member

    34,370 Messages
    1,401 Likes Received

    That's true Dooms. Never is a long time but still in all, I just do not believe the Left will ever give the man any credit.

    History as a whole may, but I'd very surprised if the Left ever did.
  9. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    75,409 Messages
    1,881 Likes Received
    I doubt many thought in the 1860's that Lincoln would go down in history as a great president. Hell Iraq conflict does not even come close 620,000 killed in that war or the divide that lasted years after the war was over.
  10. ABQCOWBOY

    ABQCOWBOY Moderator Staff Member

    34,370 Messages
    1,401 Likes Received

    I don't agree with this. I believe that fair judgement can be made on what has taken place in Iraq, to this point. What happens from here on out is not a part of what FP Bush was involved with. What happens now, and for the next few years, is Obama's. The end result may be deminished or it may be improved but whatever the case, that will reflect on another Administration IMO.
  11. ABQCOWBOY

    ABQCOWBOY Moderator Staff Member

    34,370 Messages
    1,401 Likes Received

    I hope you are correct Dooms. I am skeptical but I hope your right.
  12. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Brotherhood of the Beard Staff Member

    60,045 Messages
    3,281 Likes Received
    The best thing W did was get rid of Rummy, get Gates, put Patreaus (sp?) in charge over there.

    It scares me to think what could have been if Rummy was still there instead of Gates. But it also irks me thinking how this could have been much better if Gates was in charge from the get go instead of Rummy.

    If Rummy would have listened to the generals they would not have needed a surge...they would have had enough troops from the get go to keep it from getting like it was.

    /rant off.:)
  13. ABQCOWBOY

    ABQCOWBOY Moderator Staff Member

    34,370 Messages
    1,401 Likes Received
    I have to agree BP. When I read the troop counts with which the Battle Plan and subsiquent Occupation Plans called for, my first thoughts were, "There are not enough troops necessary to accomplish victory with." Heck, I'm sure there are probably still posts in the Archieves on that one. American Militarty Doctrin has been, for the most part, consistant on this. Overwhelming Force is the key to how America wages War. To this day, I do not understand why we turned away from that. Fight it to win at all costs is the only way to wage War. If you are not commited to that, then you should not be at War because you do not have the stomach for it.
  14. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Brotherhood of the Beard Staff Member

    60,045 Messages
    3,281 Likes Received
    That was all Rummy.

    Many, not all, generals were calling for more troops and they cut the numbers down because that was what Rummy wanted.

    The troop numbers were ok for the initial military battle, the conventional war. But they did a terrible job thinking about what would come after and we paid for that mistake with soldiers lives, huge amounts of money and the time it took to finally get things going in the right direction.
  15. CowboyWay

    CowboyWay If Coach would have put me in, we'd a won State

    4,171 Messages
    31 Likes Received
    I could not disagree more with you on this. You're basically saying Bush can go invade a country, tear the hell out of it, and then get replaced by another president, and how he decides to clean up the mess is on him?

    The fact of the matter is, when we leave completely, Iraq will have a civil war and replace whatever govt we helped establish. No matter who is President in the US.

    We could put the greatest govt the world has ever known in place over there, and they'd still topple it. You know why? Because many elements over there hate us, and if we helped create a govt, thats reason enough to topple it.

    The entire war was ludicrious.
  16. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    75,409 Messages
    1,881 Likes Received
    I did not say you would live to see it. :laugh1:
  17. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    75,409 Messages
    1,881 Likes Received

    We did not put any of their candidates on their ballots they did, there were many different parties in Iraq including that of Al Sadar and the people voted for who would represent them we did not.
  18. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Brotherhood of the Beard Staff Member

    60,045 Messages
    3,281 Likes Received
    We did help establish a new government over there. I did not see where he said we put people on the ballot.
  19. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    75,409 Messages
    1,881 Likes Received
    We did establish an interim government at the get go that is no longer the case. There has been a recent election as well it is the choice of the Iraqi people US is not picking or selecting anyone.
  20. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Brotherhood of the Beard Staff Member

    60,045 Messages
    3,281 Likes Received
    I did not see him saying we picked them all.

    We can argue over it all day and night but I did not see him say what you are saying. Maybe he meant that, maybe he did not. I am just saying I did not see him say what you are implying.

    We went there and imposed regime change by taking the head guy out of power.

    If we would not have, there would be no new government now. So we did help them get a new government.

Share This Page