Nerd Mentality

VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration's critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily "victory" but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.

Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began — though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.

In Ramadi, for example, we talked with an outstanding Marine captain whose company was living in harmony in a complex with a (largely Sunni) Iraqi police company and a (largely Shiite) Iraqi Army unit. He and his men had built an Arab-style living room, where he met with the local Sunni sheiks — all formerly allies of Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups — who were now competing to secure his friendship.

In Baghdad's Ghazaliya neighborhood, which has seen some of the worst sectarian combat, we walked a street slowly coming back to life with stores and shoppers. The Sunni residents were unhappy with the nearby police checkpoint, where Shiite officers reportedly abused them, but they seemed genuinely happy with the American soldiers and a mostly Kurdish Iraqi Army company patrolling the street. The local Sunni militia even had agreed to confine itself to its compound once the Americans and Iraqi units arrived.

We traveled to the northern cities of Tal Afar and Mosul. This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi Army troops cover the countryside. A local mayor told us his greatest fear was an overly rapid American departure from Iraq. All across the country, the dependability of Iraqi security forces over the long term remains a major question mark.

But for now, things look much better than before. American advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the force have been removed. The American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners (at least for as long as American forces remain in Iraq).

In addition, far more Iraqi units are well integrated in terms of ethnicity and religion. The Iraqi Army's highly effective Third Infantry Division started out as overwhelmingly Kurdish in 2005. Today, it is 45 percent Shiite, 28 percent Kurdish, and 27 percent Sunni Arab.

In the past, few Iraqi units could do more than provide a few "jundis" (soldiers) to put a thin Iraqi face on largely American operations. Today, in only a few sectors did we find American commanders complaining that their Iraqi formations were useless — something that was the rule, not the exception, on a previous trip to Iraq in late 2005.

The additional American military formations brought in as part of the surge, General Petraeus's determination to hold areas until they are truly secure before redeploying units, and the increasing competence of the Iraqis has had another critical effect: no more whack-a-mole, with insurgents popping back up after the Americans leave.

In war, sometimes it's important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so. A major factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army.

These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local leaders and seized young women to marry off to their loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the Americans for security and help. The most important and best-known example of this is in Anbar Province, which in less than six months has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the best (outside the Kurdish areas). Today the Sunni sheiks there are close to crippling Al Qaeda and its Salafist allies. Just a few months ago, American marines were fighting for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its streets without body armor.

Another surprise was how well the coalition's new Embedded Provincial Reconstruction Teams are working. Wherever we found a fully staffed team, we also found local Iraqi leaders and businessmen cooperating with it to revive the local economy and build new political structures. Although much more needs to be done to create jobs, a new emphasis on microloans and small-scale projects was having some success where the previous aid programs often built white elephants.

In some places where we have failed to provide the civilian manpower to fill out the reconstruction teams, the surge has still allowed the military to fashion its own advisory groups from battalion, brigade and division staffs. We talked to dozens of military officers who before the war had known little about governance or business but were now ably immersing themselves in projects to provide the average Iraqi with a decent life.

Outside Baghdad, one of the biggest factors in the progress so far has been the efforts to decentralize power to the provinces and local governments. But more must be done. For example, the Iraqi National Police, which are controlled by the Interior Ministry, remain mostly a disaster. In response, many towns and neighborhoods are standing up local police forces, which generally prove more effective, less corrupt and less sectarian. The coalition has to force the warlords in Baghdad to allow the creation of neutral security forces beyond their control.

In the end, the situation in Iraq remains grave. In particular, we still face huge hurdles on the political front. Iraqi politicians of all stripes continue to dawdle and maneuver for position against one another when major steps towards reconciliation — or at least accommodation — are needed. This cannot continue indefinitely. Otherwise, once we begin to downsize, important communities may not feel committed to the status quo, and Iraqi security forces may splinter along ethnic and religious lines.

How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.

SOURCE

It's great to see things improving. God bless the troops.
___________________

Members Rebelling From Al Qaeda in Iraq
Monday, July 23, 2007

Fed up with being part of a group that cuts off a person's face with piano wire to teach others a lesson, dozens of low-level members of Al Qaeda in Iraq are daring to become informants for the U.S. military in a hostile Baghdad neighborhood.

The ground-breaking move in Doura is part of a wider trend that has started in other Al Qaeda hotspots across the country and in which Sunni insurgent groups and tribal sheikhs have stood together with the coalition against the extremist movement.

"They are turning. We are talking to people who we believe have worked for Al Qaeda in Iraq and want to reconcile and have peace," said Col. Ricky Gibbs, commander of the 4th Brigade, 1st Infantry Division, which oversees the area.

The sewage-filled streets of Doura, a Sunni Arab enclave in south Baghdad, provide an ugly setting for what U.S. commanders say is Al Qaeda's last stronghold in the city. The secretive group, however, appears to be losing its grip as a "surge" of U.S. troops in the neighborhood — part of the latest effort by President Bush to end the chaos in Iraq — has resulted in scores of fighters being killed, captured or forced to flee.

"Al Qaeda's days are numbered and right now he is scrambling," said Lt. Col. Stephen Michael, who commands a battalion of 700 troops in Doura.

A key factor is that local people and members of Al Qaeda itself have become sickened by the violence and are starting to rebel, Lt. Col. Michael said. "The people have got to deny them sanctuary and that is exactly what is happening."

___________________
C'est tout? C'est ça.

Hola. Estoy en calle norte 334. Escucho tiros y tios gritando. Parecen americanos.

Vniz!........Vniz!

Kann ich bitte mit dem gast Pamela Landy sprechen?

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.

I'm just glad to hear that General Petraeus actually has some fucking common sense. My fingers had been crossed that things would change (for the better, obviously) when he gained control of the operations.
___________________

We might have a problem, here...

ITrustYouToKillMe

More good news although a bit old:

Insert article here

Good, Al Qaeda was never the strongest insurgent group out there. While other groups worked on improving sniper tactics or IED bombloads, Al Qaeda was busy finding out how many people are watching the Iraqi football match to bomb them. With Al Qaeda out of the way, the Sunni nationalist forces will be much better organized.

Bucket

Insert bucket rant here.

Woah man! I'm an Islamist Arab insurgent supporter and not even I think that hardcore.

ITrustYouToKillMe

I can see there are no replies in this thread. Go figure.

Good news on Iraq=liberals will ignore

Bad news on Iraq=liberals will get hard and enjoy it

More good news although a bit old:

Source?

It's funny how Harry Reid wanted more troops in Iraq and said he was on board with Bush's troop surge back in December of 2006. Now he been crying about how adding more troops won't resolve anything and that the troop surge has failed. Not to mention they were going to give the strategy a chance until September, but nooooooo. They couldn't wait.

Source?

Oh wait. I remember you now! You're the guy Who never sources his 'news'. Why they let you post here is beyond me. Sourcing yourself is akin to good reporting, y'know. Unless you are just bold faced liar. In that case, I can see why you wouldn't source.

Xavius

It's not a news piece it's an opinion piece. The last line actually tells you what to think. But then again I guess some people like it that way.

since when did liberals ever have a problem with opinion pieces? and just FYI, the authors of this article are liberal.
___________________
JFK: Ich bin ein Berliner
BHO: Ich bin ein beginner

MrSnuggles

since when did liberals ever have a problem with opinion pieces?

What are some opinion pieces posted here? Opinion pieces are meant to be posted when you have no real news to be reported. (OP are second hand accounts, hardly reliable, especially in today's heavily partisan environment)

Drunken Savior

What are some opinion pieces posted here?

almost everything the leftist media puts out is opinion.

Opinion pieces are meant to be posted when you have no real news to be reported.(OP are second hand accounts, hardly reliable, especially in today's heavily partisan environment)

did you read it? this is the FIRST HAND account of two guys who actually went over there to see FIRST HAND what is going on. oh, and they are liberals.
___________________
JFK: Ich bin ein Berliner
BHO: Ich bin ein beginner

Snugginsane

did you read it? this is the FIRST HAND account of two guys who actually went over there to see FIRST HAND what is going on. oh, and they are liberals.

I have to ask... why believe THESE liberals and not say.. oh.. every other 'liberal' piece out there? Is it only when news is good that it all seems to make sense?
___________________

I was young and confused and your mom didn't want me around no more. Now pass me dem damn collard greens!

Drunken Savior

Source?

Oh wait. I remember you now! You're the guy Who never sources his 'news'. Why they let you post here is beyond me. Sourcing yourself is akin to good reporting, y'know. Unless you are just bold faced liar. In that case, I can see why you wouldn't source.

I thought it was common sense that back in December of 2006, Harry Reid was for sending in more troops? That's the reason why I didn't use a source, but since you're not up to date with the politics behind the war, I'll cite it for you, my ignorant friend:

http://politics.netscape.com/story/2007/01/26/democrat-sen-reid-for-surge-before-he-was-against-it

Democrat Sen Reid For Surge Before He Was Against It
Politics – WASHINGTON (Reuters) - December 17, 2006: Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said on Sunday he would support a short-term increase in U.S. troops in Iraq being weighed by President George W. Bush if it is part of a broader withdrawal plan. In January 2007, Reid flip-flops when Bush assumes Reid's position.

Democratic House Intelligence Committee Chairman Reyes supported Surge in Dec 2006:

http://politics.netscape.com/story/2007/01/26/democrats-bush-is-for-surge-so-we-are-against-it/

Democratic House Leader Pelosi supported Surge in May 2004:

http://politics.netscape.com/story/2007/01/26/democrat-pelosi-was-for-surge-before-she-was-against-it/

As far not allowing the troop surge to work until September to get a good "picture":

http://democrats.org/a/2007/04/democrats_offer.php

....

That's a bum accusation on two counts: First, the Democrats would give the surge 18 months to work, more than adequate time.

....

And another:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/22/politics/main2834173.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_2834173


Looks like someone was pwned.
___________________
C'est tout? C'est ça.

Hola. Estoy en calle norte 334. Escucho tiros y tios gritando. Parecen americanos.

Vniz!........Vniz!

Kann ich bitte mit dem gast Pamela Landy sprechen?