On the ground in Iraq

[lester1/2jr]

not me,  michael Ware, the CNN guy with the bent nose.  He describes an improving but sdtill fragile situation.  From what I understand, he is relatively reliable.

Some perspective now from Michael Ware, who is in Baghdad tonight, as he has been since the war began.

Michael, in terms of long term, I mean, how -- how do you measure the progress, militarily and politically?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Anderson, clearly, there has been progress in this war. I mean, the number of deaths of both American troops and civilians are clearly down. In Baghdad alone, comparing this month to the same month last year, 1,000 people died from terrorist attacks last year, less than 200 this last year, 800 from sectarian killings last year, only about 40 this year.

There's a number of factors to consider. One is, what is the price of this? Let's look at the surge. What is the surge? I know it's taken on a phenomenon, this phrase, in America, and in the political campaigns. But, whilst it's been successful, there's none of the triumphalism that we hear from the campaigns here on the ground, nor is anyone setting benchmarks for withdrawal. It's far too fragile for that.

The surge is much more than just 30,000 troops. It's about cutting a deal with the Sunni insurgents, about getting the Shia militias to back off and what that takes. It's about the political surge forcing the politicians to move, which is going much more slowly.

It's not just about American boots on the ground. And there's long-term consequences for all of these things that none of the candidates are talking about. And how sustainable is this? There will be costs in the future. Again, the American people need to hear this, Anderson.

So, what's happening on the ground is indeed a success in many ways. But you're not getting the full picture on the campaign trail, and perhaps that shouldn't surprise anyone -- Anderson.

COOPER: When you talk to soldiers -- and that's sort of the perspective on most of the military leaders you talk probably to on a daily basis -- what are they saying about troop levels down the road? I mean, in order to sustain the military side of this, in order to sustain the military successes that universally just everyone has said we have seen, what kind of troop levels do you need down the road?

I read some report by Anthony Cordesman recently, and I think they were talking about 100,000 troops well into 2016, I think.

FOREMAN: Well, that's certainly a number that members of the Iraqi government are bandying about, 100,000 U.S. troops, down from what we will soon have of just over 130,000.

And, certainly, there's an expectation that America will hit that by the end of the year, an expectation held by some Iraqis. That's not necessarily an expectation held by American war commanders here on the ground.

Now, after the surge troops, the 30,000 extra combat forces that were sent here to flush through this war last year, once they go home in July, American force levels, American combat power will have been reduced by 25 percent already. Nonetheless, we're still going to have more Americans here after the surge, just by a few thousand, than before. So, in some ways, that's not a true indicator.

But I can tell you now, Anderson, Senator McCain mentioned 100 years American troops will be here. No one can speak to that. But I can tell you that American commanders here on the ground know that they're going to be here a lot longer than many people would otherwise expect.

Certainly, this sense of once people get into office they will start pulling the troops home is not a view shared by many here on the ground. And many believe that what's being said on the campaign will not necessarily be the action that a new president will take, no matter what party they're from. There's realities here. You just can't pull out -- Anderson.

COOPER: Last January, when the president announce the -- the so- called surge, he laid out 15 political benchmarks the Iraqi government needed to meet. Yesterday, John McCain said that almost of them -- with almost of them, we're either making progress or have succeeded.

Is that the view you hear from the political leaders on the ground, Iraqi and American?

WARE: Well, certainly from the State Department. They believe that what they call the political surge, which has been an unsung success of all of this, has been working.

And they're talking about the benchmarks. Absolutely, there's been significant gains on the political front. The deals that have been cut, the way Baghdad has been segregated off with massive blast barriers, so that it resembles a sectarian divided Sarajevo, where people can't cross the lines, has brought this down and bought some breathing room for political progress.

But, again, there's a cost for that. Can you pull the barriers down? No, or the bloodletting will resume. But, on the benchmarks, there has been progress on many of the fronts. But, again, remember, what are the costs? How long can it last? And don't forget, it's all completely underwritten by the presence of hundreds of -- more than 100,000 U.S. troops keeping everybody apart -- Anderson.

COOPER: All right. Michael Ware. Appreciate the reporting, Michael. Thank you very much, from Baghdad tonight.

[trekgeezer]

My understanding of the "the surge is working" is that the reason it is working so far is that we are basically paying off the Sunni insurgents, something that can't go on forever.

What really kills me is that Al Queda didn't exist in Iraq before we invaded it.  Now we can't get out of it because it would surely turn into terrorists haven.


The US having troops on the ground there is never going to resolve anything. The Iraqis are going to have to resolve their sectarian differences themselves, but given the past of the middle east I don't have much faith that is going happen.

[lester1/2jr]

I think what he's saying is that the surge of troops is a PART of what is going on over there,  but it's much more comlpex than we think of it.  iraq itself and the people are as much or more of a factor as our additional troops.  I mean, it's only 30,000 additional troops.


I think the firing or rumsfeld has alot to do with this.  I think Gates and Petreaus are clearly much better equipped for this type of situation

here's the transcript

there's a lot of oother stuff in this show besides this report.  it comes right after some gasbag named O Hanlon is interviewed.

[ER]

I suspect, also, the Iraqis know that the next election may well bring the withdrawal of US forces, either totally or in large part, and those who had actively sought to fight American ground forces in the past are now simply biding their time until they can either transfer the full brunt of their war against the US-sponsored government in Baghdad, or against a much smaller US force in Iraq. This in itself might give the illusion of the "surge's" success.

[clockworkcanary]

"The surge is much more than just 30,000 troops. It's about cutting a deal with the Sunni insurgents, about getting the Shia militias to back off and what that takes. It's about the political surge forcing the politicians to move, which is going much more slowly"

I like how the "surge" is being retrodefined as a two-pronged approach with military enhancement and political diplomacy; something many of us have suggested all along.  Double-plus Good!

[lester1/2jr]

whenever I see Ware I am afraid I'm going to watch him get killed on the air

[Killer Bees]

I still don't get why Bush invaded Iraq - the WMD thing was a lie.  Is it because of the oil?

[clockworkcanary]

If I may be so bold, here's my opinion.  It was about a few things...but it boils down to what was perceived as an easy win on the "war on terror" that didn't turn out to be anything of the sort (not easy and a distraction from the real war on terrorists).  I think Bush, unlike his father, blundered around big time.  I think we could have taken out Saddam without destroying Iraq's infrastructure, creating massive amounts of unemployment, and hence creating no other option for young angry Iraqis other than to join resistance groups. Bush the elder had a better idea with surgical strikes -it's just too bad they didn't get him earlier.

I've often heard it was planned well before 9/11 (how can that be verified though?) and that gave them the excuse to do it.  But I can't help but notice that we basically destroyed their infrastructure in order for some multinational companies to get paid to rebuild it while being "protected" by our troops.  Something is unsettling about our troops used to protect contractors who work for companies that relocate their headquarters off US soil to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.   Who's the real "traitor" - multinational companies who get out of paying their taxes or people who disagree with a flimsy policy.

This is why it's so frustrating -they keep moving the goal posts and redefining what it means to "win" - see I'm not sure what the difference between "staying the course" and "occupation" really is.  They seem, as of late, to avoid defining what it means to "win" -Hell, I thought we "won" militarily back in 2003.  And what I hate the most is that false dichotomy of "support Bush's policy" or "cut and run" as if those are the only two options.  Add to that, they really didn't do their research before the initial attack.  Not to mention, you can't win someone else's civil war.  I'm also not happy about showing the world our military tactics in such a way.

I also hate the false dichotomy that if you don't support the Bush Administration's ever-evolving reasoning that you somehow don't support our military -what a crock of BS.  I know my brother-in-law, who served in Persian Gulf I, doesn't agree with Bush's flimsy reasoning and I don't think anyone would call him a traitor.  The whole thing is just frustrating for everyone...a quagmire.  To quote Full Metal Jacket's Gomer Pyle, "we're in a world of s**t"

Ok rant over.  I probably said more than I should have.  Anyway, to answer your question: no, I don't think it was about the oil.  It was about machoism and money to be made rebuilding after "Shock and Awe."

[lester1/2jr]

canary-  I think we can all agree it ended up being much more difficult than they initially thought it would be!


to people who opposed it at the time they were almost like "what is your problem?  why won't you let us send a handful of troops to knock this irritating guy over?  YOU aren't going to have to do anything"  like you were some kind of jerk.


BUt alot can go wrong and alot did.  as a conservative,  i am very cynical about the ability of government and feel it is limited to say the least. 


remeber, when they passed NAFTA they said it was going to help our illegal immigration problem.  iraq was supposed to do the same for terrorism.  little johnny jihadi will be too happy working at starbucks to want to blow up things.


so now we have more terrorism and more illegal immigration!!!  so much for government led globalization plots

[clockworkcanary]

Heh, I think no matter where ya fit on the political spectrum, we can probably all agree that people (the government or the industrial tycoons) are greedy morons :)  - I don't trust any of them, which is why the only way things will get better is if I rule the planet with an iron fist!  ok j/k ...my Stewie Griffon complex coming out there! hehe.

NAFTA sucks donkey -I know this from living in the Great Lakes region - we've been hit hard ...really sucks watching neighborhoods turn into slums because everyone's underemployed.  Sure, we have near the worst unemployment in the country due to all the factories shipping out and most people have to migrate from decent wages to barely over minimum just to survive.

And they need to fix legal immigration -well, they need to take a multi-pronged approach to the problem.  It's all about avoidance;avoidance - if it's that damned hard and a pain in the ass to become a legal citizen, we can expect a lot of people aren't even going to try.  There needs to be a better way for non citizens to become citizens, in such a way that is fair for everyone.  I'm not talking about granting amnesty to anyone.  And hating a group of people for wanting to better there lives the only way they know how isn't going to solve any problems for anyone.  They should set it up like D&D - after you get to, say, 20th lvl, you've earned citizenship.  Seriously though, there needs to be a better way for people to earn citizenship, meanwhile we can export a few homegrown morons while we're at it :) heh.

[Dennis]

I remember that at the time the majority of people in this country were, for many reasons, in favor of removing Saddam by military force. Now, hindsight being always 20/20, it seems it was a bad decision.
Regardless of whether it was right or wrong, we're there now and we have deal with the situation. Is Iraq and the rest of the world better off with out Saddam? I would say yes. Should we have used military force to remove him? Probably not, although as I've said, to most of us at the time it seemed okay, at least we all went along with the decision. Should we still be in Iraq? Do we owe the people of Iraq anything? Yes, we should stay, and we do owe the Iraqis something, we owe the average Iraqi a country with a stable government, where he can get up in the morning, earn a living, provide for his family and be fairly certain no one's going to blow him up or shoot him while he goes about his daily business. This is what we promised to them, and I believe that promises should be kept.

[lester1/2jr]

"we" didn't promise them anything.  our government went to war against our better interest.  it's their war not ours

[indianasmith]

I still don't get why Bush invaded Iraq - the WMD thing was a lie.  Is it because of the oil?

First off, let me make one point.  The "WMD thing" was not a LIE.  A lie would be a deliberate falsehood.  The fact is, Saddam had definitely had and used these weapons in the past - he didn't gas 20,000 Kurds to death by farting on them!!!  In the 12 years since he signed the treaty to eliminate ALL his stockpiles, he had made every effort to deceive and play "shell games" with the UN weapons inspectors, whom he eventually kicked out of his country.  Virtually every intelligence agency in the world was of the opinion that he still had a limited stockpile, as was . . . . Saddam himself!!!!  When the Americans invaded, he gave numerous orders for his forces to break out these weapons and be prepared to use them.  So what happened?  Well, a few small stores have been found - most notable some 500 Sarin gas shells stored at an underground facility.  As for the rest . . . I think Syria and Iran "got to" a couple of Iraqi generals and got the weapons, however many were left, smuggled across the border during the run-up to the war.

It goes without saying that we would not be in the Middle East at all were it not for the presence of oil there.  We would be as indifferent to Iraq as we are to the never-ending slaughter in Africa.  But to say we "invaded Iraq to get their oil" is to oversimplify a very complex situation.  I still think removing Saddam was the right thing to do.  It's a shame that the smooth-talking Rumsfeld was so disastrously wrong about how to fight this war properly.

[Dennis]

"we" didn't promise them anything.  our government went to war against our better interest.  it's their war not ours

I believe that we did promise them a better life than one lived under a dictator, but whether or not that's true the fact is that we're there now and we have to take care of the situation we caused.
In this country we are the government, all 300 million of us, so this is our war. If you object to the war you can make your feelings known to your congressman and senators, you can do this by mail, email, phone or in person at their local offices, they're listed in the phone book under Federal Government. I know from personal experience that this can be both frustrating and annoying but if we as individuals do not let the politicians know how we feel, they're going to assume that we approve of everything they do, and, as you've no doubt seen, they sometimes do stupid things. When they do we need to tell them

[trekgeezer]

I still don't get why Bush invaded Iraq - the WMD thing was a lie.  Is it because of the oil?

First off, let me make one point.  The "WMD thing" was not a LIE. 

I would suggest you read this article.

Saddam had been blowing smoke about the WMDs for years simply to keep his neighbor thinking he had them.  He never believed we would invade Iraq.