Why do I still not believe them?

The surge is now so successful that even the Washington Post has been forced to notice, saying "al-Qaeda in Iraq is an organization in disarray"

Too bad its the al-Queda in the Afghanistan and Pakistan area that actually attacked us. And I hear they are on the rebound.

GO USA GO USA GO USA

That's good and everything, but weren't the Iraqis supposed to be taking care of this by now? The real epic fail in Iraq has been our inability to get a well trained Iraqi military force in place.

THE WAR IS LOST.

Al Queda in Iraq isnt even a real group and comprises less than 2% of the insurgency. its a long way from successful

Not going in on a lie in the first place might have been more successful.

With the total lack of integrity the American administration has conducted itself with over the past few years, why would any other country believe any information the US government puts out?

I know politicians lie, I just don't expect them to lie 100% of the time.

They've always been in disarray. They are not a sanctioned body of the people that executed the 9/11 attacks. They just wanted a recognizable name.

The surge was put in place so that the Iraqi military and government could have the breathing room they need in order to get their shiat together.

The violence has waned, although largely that's because of the "hudnah" with the Sadr Army and has nothing to do with Al Qaeda. The Iraqi government and police and military haven't changed or reformed or made themselves more viable in any way.

Meanwhile, the warhawks in America cheer the success of the surge? It sure it easy to score a touchdown when you move the goalposts to your own 20 yard line.

nekom: That's good and everything, but weren't the Iraqis supposed to be taking care of this by now? The real epic fail in Iraq has been our inability to get a well trained Iraqi military force in place.


Yep, and didn't our own Joint Chiefs say it would be about a decade before the Iraqi army and police force would be able to secure their own borders?

I yield to Senator Obama's response (new window) in the last Democratic debate:

"I welcome the progress. This notion that Democrats don't want to see progress in Iraq is ridiculous.

I have to hug mothers in rope lines during town hall meetings as they weep over their fallen sons and daughters. I want to get our troops home safely, and I want us as a country to have this mission completed honorably.

But the notion that somehow we have succeeded as a consequence of the recent reductions in violence means that we have set the bar so low it's buried in the sand at this point.

And I've said this before. We went from intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional government to spikes and horrific levels of violence and a dysfunctional government. And now, two years later, we're back to intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional government.

And in the meantime, we have spent billions of dollars, lost thousands of lives.

Thousands more have been maimed and injured as a consequence and are going to have difficulty putting their lives back together again.

So understand that this has undermined our security. In the meantime, Afghanistan has slid into more chaos than existed before we went into Iraq.

I am happy to have that argument. I also think it is going to be important, though, for the Democrat -- you know, Senator Clinton mentioned the issue of gravitas and judgment. I think it is much easier for us to have the argument, when we have a nominee who says, I always thought this was a bad idea, this was a bad strategy.

It was not just a problem of execution. It was not just a problem of execution.

I mean, they screwed up the execution of it in all sorts of ways. And I think even Senator McCain has acknowledged that.

The question is: Can we make an argument that this was a conceptually flawed mission, from the start?

And we need better judgment when we decide to send our young men and women into war, that we are making absolutely certain that it is because there is an imminent threat, that American interests are going to be protected, that we have a plan to succeed and to exit, that we are going to train our troops properly and equip them properly and put them on proper rotations and treat them properly when they come home.

And that is an argument that I think we are going to have an easer time making if they can't turn around and say: But hold on a second; you supported this.

And that's part of the reason why I think that I would be the strongest nominee on this argument of national security."

FTA: The group's leadership is now jettisoning some of its past tactics to refocus attacks on American troops, Sunnis cooperating closely with U.S. forces, and Iraq's infrastructure.

What a fantastic idea, insurgency. Let's target the infrastructure of the country and piss off the population a little bit more. Fantastic thinking.

Madbassist1: Al Queda in Iraq isnt even a real group and comprises less than 2% of the insurgency. its a long way from successful

Where might you be getting this information from?

Maybe the surge is working because they're running out of suicidal Iraqi's?

Great...more smoke and mirrors to make everybody forget that the original invasion was unnecessary and the reasons given were a complete fabrication. You may now tune back to American Idol.

The best place it's been working is in China, where they now own even more of our asses than before.

\spend and borrow is better than tax and spend how?

And it only cost the livelihood of the next two generations. What a deal!

2wheeljunkie: They've always been in disarray. They are not a sanctioned body of the people that executed the 9/11 attacks. They just wanted a recognizable name.

Exactly. This doesn't impact bin Laden in the slightest. To him, it's just a franchise deal. Basically, al-Qaeda in Iraq is like a poorly run McDonalds in the bad part of town.

So where's that oil revenue sharing bill? Now that it's safer than Detroit in Iraq, political progress should be cake, right?

BritneysSpeculum: Exactly. This doesn't impact bin Laden in the slightest. To him, it's just a franchise deal. Basically, al-Qaeda in Iraq is like a poorly run McDonalds in the bad part of town.

Not even. It's more like some kids give crappy hamburgers to the homeless and call it McMeals on McMeals. Then Burger King runs a bunch of ads featuring the crappy burgers. The ads say, "look how crappy McDonald's burgers are. God damn they are crappy!" And then McDonald's says, "hey wait, that's not that bad of an idea," and proceeds to supply the kids with free burgers, tons of funding, ads, and makes the program nation-wide because it makes McDonald's look really good.

Only its still just some kids giving out burgers and it really doesn't help homelessness at all. But Burger King is still going on about crappy McDonald's burgers........

i think i've lost this analogy.

keylock71: Yep, and didn't our own Joint Chiefs say it would be about a decade before the Iraqi army and police force would be able to secure their own borders?

I'm not sure who all said what, but a lot of people early on talked as if it would be a breeze. As if by now they'd have a fully trained army and police force, and we'd either be totally gone or with a small contingent of special forces to aid them. I do realize these things take time, but I have seen almost no progress whatsoever on that front.

Does that mean we can leave now?

I'll believe the surge is working when Exxon and Mobile risk their own money to put employees and material on the ground to get the oil flowing again.

Until then, the surge is BULLshiat.

I just want people to know the lifeboats are working:

fosborb: BritneysSpeculum: Exactly. This doesn't impact bin Laden in the slightest. To him, it's just a franchise deal. Basically, al-Qaeda in Iraq is like a poorly run McDonalds in the bad part of town.

Not even. It's more like some kids give crappy hamburgers to the homeless and call it McMeals on McMeals. Then Burger King runs a bunch of ads featuring the crappy burgers. The ads say, "look how crappy McDonald's burgers are. God damn they are crappy!" And then McDonald's says, "hey wait, that's not that bad of an idea," and proceeds to supply the kids with free burgers, tons of funding, ads, and makes the program nation-wide because it makes McDonald's look really good.

Only its still just some kids giving out burgers and it really doesn't help homelessness at all. But Burger King is still going on about crappy McDonald's burgers........

i think i've lost this analogy.

Ok, what he said. He obviously has given this a lot more thought to this simile than I did.

BritneysSpeculum: Ok, what he said. He obviously has given this a lot more thought to this simile than I did.

Also, if you catch anyone with a hamburger wrapper that looks like its from McDonald's, Burger King will throw that person into Gitmo a urine-filled ball pit and give you some Burger King gift certificates. And using Burger King's ball pit is totally legal even if it kinda looks like McDonald's Playcenter ball pits.

The Burger King represents a strengthened Executive while his commercials reflect a global reach. While Ronald McDonald is heathenistic fanaticism in the flesh.

The unmentioned irony is that there wasn't an Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq before the war at all.

There were no suicide bombings.
There was no large scale non-secular violence.
There was no radical islamic insurgency.

Let me know when we get back to that point. Then I'll agree that the surge has worked. I'll probably still not agree that it's been worth it.

kasmel: The unmentioned irony is that there wasn't an Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq before the war at all.

There were no suicide bombings.
There was no large scale non-secular violence.
There was no radical islamic insurgency.

Let me know when we get back to that point. Then I'll agree that the surge has worked. I'll probably still not agree that it's been worth it.

HAHA

We gave you Iraqis the flu in 2003, but hey, now we're treating it.

You're welcome.

Yay! Five years, thousands of American lives, and a bajillion dollars to crush a glorified street-gang that took up the name of our enemy after we invaded their country. Did I say "Yay!" yet?

In case it hasn't been said yet:

The government of Iraq is an organization in disarray.

Wendy's Chili: Yay! Five years, thousands of American lives, and a bajillion dollars to crush a glorified street-gang that took up the name of our enemy after we invaded their country. Did I say "Yay!" yet?

But enough of that, why aren't you getting involved in the McDonald's/Burger King argument?

Car_Ramrod: I yield to Senator Obama's response (new window) in the last Democratic debate:

yeah, that and the comment about republicans not being in the position to argue fiscal responsibility... he knocked those clear out of the park

"Al-Qaeda in Iraq is an organization in disarray"

So is the Iraqi government.

Furthermore, Al-Qaeda in Iraq was always in disarray. It's been staffed by criminals and ne'er-do-wells, and plagued by infighting among Sunnis since day 1 (which was sometime after the US invasion, since there was no al-Qaeda in Iraq beforehand).

kasmel: The unmentioned irony is that there wasn't an Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq before the war at all.

There were no suicide bombings.
There was no large scale non-secular violence.
There was no radical islamic insurgency.

Let me know when we get back to that point. Then I'll agree that the surge has worked. I'll probably still not agree that it's been worth it.

B-b-b-b-b-but Saddam!

/sarcasm

This is very goods news. We've managed to not only conquer the green zone, but defeat the enemy we created by invading. Unfortunately, the other 98% of the enemy is blocked by cement walls while being told to stand down by Al Sadr, but according to John McCain we have 100 years to take care of these tiny issues.

Snarfangel: But enough of that, why aren't you getting involved in the McDonald's/Burger King argument?

Wendy's agrees that McDonald's is a problem for them, but they disagree with Burger King's direct and interventionist response to McDonald's. Wendy's was the first to cut transfats out of its fries, signaling a desire to stand out on the fast food stage by offering healthy choices. While it's uncertain if forcing health on customers actually makes customers healthy (especially in a fast food joint), it's a marked difference from the philosophies of both Burger King and McDonald's. It is this difference, ultimately, that creates an undercurrent of tension between Burger King and Wendy's ensuring any joint move against McDonald's will hinge on tenuous treaties at best. Unfortunately, Wendy's marketing is staffed with many who are sympathetic to McDonald's practices. This has created things like the 99 Cent Super Value Menu which, while superficially better than McDonald's Dollar Menu, really just reaffirms the philosophy behind the Dollar Menu while at the same time splintering the Wendy's image -- a burger joint that tries to be more than a burger joint, but ultimately is too much of a burger joint brand to ignore.

This is the real difference. While Burger King is constantly experimenting with new tastes and ways of doing things (while still holding on to traditional burgers), McDonald's is all about selling a consistent brand. It doesn't really matter what is sold under the McDonald's brand as long as it sells. This empty focus creates a fanaticism that can truly be seen in children who know no better and the uneducated who falsely believe in the value of a cheap burger -- sure McDonald's might give you a heart attack, but you could have a heart attack eating at any fast food place... and hell, if you eat enough McDonald's to have a heart attack, over the years you probably saved 72 brand new, crisp dollar bills. Contrast these opposing philosophies to Wendy's whose internal contradictions mar it in public perception. But while it does have flaws and it has certainly hurt for those flaws, really, the world would be a far less interesting place without une belle tasse de piment.

insurgent welfare. it used to be called "concerned local citizens", now they call it "sons of iraq". $10 a day per insurgent.

the surge caused an increase in fatalities, buying peace worked immediately.

Snarfangel: But enough of that, why aren't you getting involved in the McDonald's/Burger King argument?

"Al-Qaeda in Iraq is an organization in disarray"

Did you kill their "second in command" again?
Are they officially in their "last throes"
Down to a "few dead enders"?

Let the shower of chocolates and flowers commence/snark>

The "insurgency" aka resistance in Iraq is widely supported and will continue down unto successive generations. The AQ in Iraq was always a bit of a canard meant to keep folks too afraid to question the logic of taking on an entire country. A distraction from the fact that Iraq is like Vietnam in the sense that it is possible to win every battle and still lose the war. If either Dumbya the War Dodger or Dickless of the 5 Deferments and "other priorities" Cheney had actually gone to Vietnam they woulda known this, of course.

2 Million internally displaced people and 2 million refugees outside the country? The insurgency will never run out of hate fuelled Iraqis wanting to rid their country of the tyranny of the American occupation.

Never.

Learn that.

Tell that to the 99 people they killed the other day using 2 retards.

Car_Ramrod: "I welcome the progress. This notion that Democrats don't want to see progress in Iraq is ridiculous.

I have to hug mothers in rope lines during town hall meetings as they weep over their fallen sons and daughters. I want to get our troops home safely, and I want us as a country to have this mission completed honorably.

But the notion that somehow we have succeeded as a consequence of the recent reductions in violence means that we have set the bar so low it's buried in the sand at this point.

And I've said this before. We went from intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional government to spikes and horrific levels of violence and a dysfunctional government. And now, two years later, we're back to intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional government.

And in the meantime, we have spent billions of dollars, lost thousands of lives.

Thousands more have been maimed and injured as a consequence and are going to have difficulty putting their lives back together again.

So understand that this has undermined our security. In the meantime, Afghanistan has slid into more chaos than existed before we went into Iraq.

I am happy to have that argument. I also think it is going to be important, though, for the Democrat -- you know, Senator Clinton mentioned the issue of gravitas and judgment. I think it is much easier for us to have the argument, when we have a nominee who says, I always thought this was a bad idea, this was a bad strategy.

It was not just a problem of execution. It was not just a problem of execution.

I mean, they screwed up the execution of it in all sorts of ways. And I think even Senator McCain has acknowledged that.

The question is: Can we make an argument that this was a conceptually flawed mission, from the start?

And we need better judgment when we decide to send our young men and women into war, that we are making absolutely certain that it is because there is an imminent threat, that American interests are going to be protected, that we have a plan to succeed and to exit, that we are going to train our troops properly and equip them properly and put them on proper rotations and treat them properly when they come home.

And that is an argument that I think we are going to have an easer time making if they can't turn around and say: But hold on a second; you supported this.

And that's part of the reason why I think that I would be the strongest nominee on this argument of national security."

Worth seeing again.

Of course, before we invaded Iraq there was no such thing as Al Queda in Iraq.

Al Qaeda in Iraq never was much more than a few people. The real reason the surge is working is that we are now making deals with the insurgents. The Sadr ceasefire. We are giving up control of areas to local militias. Mostly we are just chilling in the bases only getting out when we have to .

oh and I failed to mention that most of the areas that had Sunni vs Shiia civil war raging have been purged of whoever was the minority and the country has become more segregated as a result.
Most neighborhoods are theologically "pure" now.

It's kinda like when the native Americans were run off from their land. the area calmed down once their race was killed off or ran off.

For those who believe everything is hunky dory you should talk to a few of the 3 million refugees living in places other than their homes and ask them why they don't just go home.

Al Qaeda in Iraq has been in disarray since day one.

So farking what?

2wheeljunkie: They've always been in disarray. They are not a sanctioned body of the people that executed the 9/11 attacks. They just wanted a recognizable name.

Yep.

Al Qaeda



Al Qaeda in Iraq

Damn some of you guys are like the fundy creationists. No matter what the evidence, it's never adequate, and the goalposts kep shifting.

Hello?..............oops... dead thread.....

al Qaeda composes 2% our of enemy in Iraq, according to government reports. They are not our primary cause of death.

Try the Sunni and Shia militias.

Wow, reading some of the back-peddling and goal post moving in this thread I think some of you live in a box. There is a lot of ignorance showing about the entire situation in Iraq.

But hey, don't let ignorance stop you from having a drastic opinion...

WFern: al Qaeda composes 2% our of enemy in Iraq, according to government reports. They are not our primary cause of death.

Try the Sunni and Shia militias.

The larger players amongst the Sunni and Shia militias have also declared ceasefire, or have slowed operations. Along with the surge we engaged in a strategy Rumsfeld refused to allow: talking to them. And now, strangely enough, the Sunni and Shia militias are getting more enthusiastic about joining the political process instead of just killing each other.

Oh, and yeah, AQI was never a major player in Iraq, especially after they started beheading people. That pissed off Ansar al Sunna and the other Sunni insurgent groups enough to basically vacate them. al-Qaeda appears to be focusing more on Afghanistan, since they are more welcome there fighting along side the Taliban than in Iraq chopping off fingers for smoking or killing women for being outside without a man.

The surge is still working, however that is hardly to the administration's credit. I've said it many times before and I'll say it again, had we listened to Erik Shinseki, the head of the freaking U.S. Army at the time, and sent in 500,000 troops instead of just 100,000 this would never have kept going past 2004.

Interventionism works, if you do it right, ie: stop being a puss when it comes down to drawing guns.

Car_Ramrod: I yield to Senator Obama's response (new window) in the last Democratic debate:

-I'm less than impressed with Obama's statement. On national television he chose to spend his time blaming Bush for problems in Iraq and Afghanistan (a sentiment I certainly agree with) rather than present any sort of coherent plan for righting the wrongs of the Bush administration. Blaming failures on predecessors may be a time-honored political tradition, but it can only take one so far before specific plans and details are required.

Where is his grand plan for Iraq and Afghanistan? What are his intended changes for our current military strategy in the Middle East? His "Blueprint for Change" only states that he wants to pull troops out of Iraq immediately and apparently hope for the best.

"I'm not Bush and I didn't support the Iraq invasion" is well and good, but it's not a plan.