Progress in Iraq? Say it ain't so Katie.

RandFan · 4th September 2007, 08:00 PM

Couric: 'Real Progress' In Iraq

CBS) BAGHDAD, Iraq One week before Gen. David Petraeus is expected to give his report on U.S. progress in Iraq, CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric says she has already seen dramatic improvements in the country.

"We hear so much about things going bad, but real progress has been made there in terms of security and stability," Couric said Tuesday. "I mean, obviously, infrastructure problems abound, but Sunnis and U.S. forces are working together. They banded together because they had a common enemy: al Qaeda."

Puppycow · 4th September 2007, 09:43 PM

First of all, I really hope she's right.

Secondly, I have to ask: does 'real progress' mean the boys can come home sooner, or that they have to stay longer? It seems that there has never been any point in this war when someone wasn't assuring us that 'real progress' was being made.

davefoc · 4th September 2007, 11:51 PM

I think there is one aspect about Iraq that Bush and others have been right about for awhile. Iraq has pockets of significant normalcy and peace.

This is a fact which cuts two ways with respect to Couric's comments. On the one had it bolsters the notion that things aren't as bad as they seem based on the daily drum beat of reported killings.

The other way to view that fact is that there have been pockets of peace and normalcy in Iraq for a long time and taking somebody around and showing them pockets of peace and normalcy as evidence of improvement in the overall Iraqi situation is bogus.

corplinx · 5th September 2007, 12:00 AM

Of course there's progress in Iraq, however political reconciliation is so important that any progress is negligible in comparison.

RandFan · 5th September 2007, 01:00 AM

Originally Posted by davefoc

The other way to view that fact is that there have been pockets of peace and normalcy in Iraq for a long time and taking somebody around and showing them pockets of peace and normalcy as evidence of improvement in the overall Iraqi situation is bogus.

Given that we are talking about Katie Couric you are probably right.

corplinx · 5th September 2007, 01:07 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Given that we are talking about Katie Couric you are probably right.

Anbar wasn't a pocket of peace.

FireGarden · 5th September 2007, 02:08 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

[...] but Sunnis and U.S. forces are working together. They banded together because they had a common enemy: al Qaeda."

They've had a common enemy for a long time.
http://www.aina.org/news/2007032293837.htm

Quote:

[…] on October 12, 2006, Islamist websites posted a video by “Sheikh Osama Al-Iraqi,” who appeared masked and was identified as “one of the jihad commanders in the Land of the Two Rivers.”

Abu Osama Al-Iraqi called upon bin Laden to renounce Al-Qaeda because it targets and kills Sunni civilians and Sunni jihad fighters belonging to other factions. He also accused Al-Qaeda of cooperating with the “Crusaders” and with the Shi’ites.

While declaring his loyalty to bin Laden, Al-Iraqi criticized him for appointing a non-Iraqi [namely Abu Hamza Al-Muhajir] to head Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

So they were against al-Qaeda -- to the extent of accusing them of cooperating with the "Crusaders" and the Iranians -- and had even asked bin Laden to renounce al-Qaeda. Perhaps with a view to setting up an organisation which didn't hamper Sunni attempts to fight the "Crusaders" -- but still against al-Qaeda as it was/is.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081301209.html
(Aug 2005)

Quote:

Rising up against insurgent leader Abu Musab Zarqawi, Iraqi Sunni Muslims in Ramadi fought with grenade launchers and automatic weapons Saturday to defend their Shiite neighbors against a bid to drive them from the western city, Sunni leaders and Shiite residents said. The fighting came as the U.S. military announced the deaths of six American soldiers.

So some Sunnis were fighting al-Qaeda from Aug 2005.

America has started backing Sunni militias. They want to point to something positive so they give you something that has existed for a couple of years, but not been made a fuss of: Sunnis fighting al-Qaeda.

hgc · 5th September 2007, 03:42 AM

Here's more from Couric:

Quote:

BOB SCHIEFFER, HOST: Katie, what are you impressions after being there on the scene? We’ve all followed this for years from afar but once you’re there — anything surprise you in particular?

KATIE COURIC: Well I was surprised, you know, after I went to Eastern Baghad. I was taken to the Allawi market which is near Haifa street which was the scene of that very bloody gun battle back in January and you know this market seemed to be thriving and there were a lot of people out and about. A lot of family owned businesses and vegetable stalls and so you do see signs of life that seem to be normal. Of course that’s what the U.S. military wants me to see so you have to keep that in mind as well.

On one level, Couric knows that she's getting a stage-managed view of Iraq. Too bad she doesn't apply a little skepticism in her reporting rather than playing the part of willing propagandist. Contrast this was her predecessor, Walter Cronkite, telling it like it was re Vietnam in 1968. So much of the illustrious CBS News.

pgwenthold · 5th September 2007, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by FireGarden

America has started backing Sunni militias. They want to point to something positive so they give you something that has existed for a couple of years, but not been made a fuss of: Sunnis fighting al-Qaeda.

More to the point, aren't they basically admitting that the key to success is to get the Iraqis to play a bigger role? How does that support the contention that we need to keep our troops there? How does support the contention that the "surge" did any good?

They are basically admitting that, even if we stipulate that there has been improvement in Iraq, it hasn't been because of the surge, but because the Iraqis have taken a bigger role in fighting the insurgents.

Gurdur · 5th September 2007, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by corplinx

Anbar wasn't a pocket of peace.

I'm quite willing to believe the Coalition forces have been successful in calming down certain areas -- for a limited time being. However all overall trends point to overall failure, not success, and continuing breakdown.

corplinx · 5th September 2007, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by Gurdur

I'm quite willing to believe the Coalition forces have been successful in calming down certain areas -- for a limited time being. However all overall trends point to overall failure, not success, and continuing breakdown.

Which is essentially what I said in my previous post. In that one, I was responding the very unskeptical claim that Couric was just seeing the same pockets of peace she had seen before.

Cain · 5th September 2007, 10:07 AM

I realize high school was long ago and does not determine who you are, who you're going to be, etc etc etc, but seriously, who was Katie Couric high school? I'm betting all of her classmates would have laughed at the idea she would become a trustworthy journalist. She's such a light-weight.

stanleywinthrop · 5th September 2007, 11:41 AM

Here's some reading by an Australian named David Kilcullen for those interested:

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/200...tribal-revolt/

an excerpt:

Quote:

Some tribal leaders told me that the split started over women. This is not as odd as it sounds. One of AQ’s standard techniques, which I have seen them apply in places as diverse as Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Indonesia, is to marry leaders and key operatives to women from prominent tribal families. The strategy works by creating a bond with the community, exploiting kinship-based alliances, and so “embedding” the AQ network into the society. Over time, this makes AQ part of the social landscape, allows them to manipulate local people and makes it harder for outsiders to pry the network apart from the population.

The Painter · 5th September 2007, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by hgc

So much of the illustrious CBS News.

This is what does it for you??? How about when Dan Rather so wanted forged documents to be true, that he reported them as true. False, forged crap. That didn't do it for you??? OH, you probably wanted that to be true also. I'll bet you still believe them.

Couric reports something that is true and you reject it. Dismissed as propaganda. You're a piece of work.

All the spin in here is making me dizzy.

hgc · 5th September 2007, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by The Painter

This is what does it for you??? How about when Dan Rather so wanted forged documents to be true, that he reported them as true. False, forged crap. That didn't do it for you??? OH, you probably wanted that to be true also. I'll bet you still believe them.

You're making assumptions about what I thought of Dan Rather and the phony documents regarding Bush's desertion during Vietnam. Why don't you find things out before you run from the room with your hair on fire?

Quote:

Couric reports something that is true and you reject it. Dismissed as propaganda. You're a piece of work.

If Couric is reporting that the situation is improving in Iraq or that the "surge" is meeting its stated goals, then that's not true. Again, you are making unreasonable assumptions.

Quote:

All the spin in here is making me dizzy.

Poor you. Getting the vapors? Then you can restrict your associations to similarly deluded souls. You'll be much better off.

DRBUZZ0 · 5th September 2007, 04:13 PM

I spent some time recently talking with a couple of friends who had just come back from serving in Iraq. It was really... surprising some of the things they told me about their experience there.

What surprised me the most is that they said the Iraqi people don't really hate Americans but what they don't like is that Americans keep trying to stop them from killing other Iraqis. He said it was like "getting caught in the cross fire"

Basically the Sunis seem to think "Can we get the Americans to leave so we can kill all the Shias and take back our country like we're supposed to."

Whereas the Shias figure that it's their country because they have the majority and the Sunis were the ones who artificially kept power. So their stand is "Can we just get the Americans out so we can kill the Sunis"

There is progress... in terms of building infrastructure and such. The electricity and sewers and government buildings are better than they were. But the problem is that when you build a school in a suni region the Shias go nuts and vicr versa. No matter how much you try to cater to both they have a fit when they see the other side getting anything.

As for the Kurds, they've all left for the Kurdish region, which is where most were. That area is doing okay, relatively speaking.

And it's reasonably sorta peaceful in the Suni or Shia regions... as long as they aren't mixed. But Baghdad you have a lot of crowding and the groups are too close togeather. It's a very packed city.

Also, about 80-90% of the population would be okay with some kind of ceasefire and probably wants that. Most Shias and most Suns would be willing to say "I hate the other side, but I'm willing to at least try to live with them if I have to." But that doesn't really matter, because as long as you have 10%-20% who would rather die than entertain the thoughts of a truce of any kind at all... well... it ain't happening.

On top of this, you have to figure that having Sunis and Shias together in the police or security forces doesn't work too well eithier. Some of the Iraqi forces are okay, but in general, you are best off not giving them too much trust. Many are incompetant.

One of the guys did say there was an exception. The Iraqi Special Forces are badass.. they're professional and get the job done. They take orders and don't let you down in general. Ironically, these are basically the guys from Sadam Huesine's military who have been reassembled. There aren't enough though, because most of the original Iraqi military (now disbanded) were never very professional.

It's strange that indeed much of the nation is not *that* bad, but the cities and the regions on the borders of ethnic zones are hell.

But I suppose if you want to measure success by means of cell phone service, power lines and sewage treatment plants, we're doing stellar!

The Painter · 5th September 2007, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by hgc

You're making assumptions about what I thought of Dan Rather and the phony documents regarding Bush's desertion during Vietnam. Why don't you find things out before you run from the room with your hair on fire?

You must have liked what he said. You didn't disavow CBS until now.

Originally Posted by hgc

If Couric is reporting that the situation is improving in Iraq or that the "surge" is meeting its stated goals, then that's not true. Again, you are making unreasonable assumptions.

And you know it's not true because.....? You don't want it to be, or are you making assumptions?

Originally Posted by hgc

Poor you. Getting the vapors? Then you can restrict your associations to similarly deluded souls. You'll be much better off.

My deluded souls can beat up your deluded souls.

John 13 · 5th September 2007, 04:47 PM

CBS) BAGHDAD, Iraq One week before Gen. David Petraeus is expected to give his report on U.S. progress in Iraq, CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric says she has already seen dramatic improvements in the country.

"We hear so much about things going bad, but real progress has been made there in terms of security and stability," Couric said Tuesday. "I mean, obviously, infrastructure problems abound, but Sunnis and U.S. forces are working together. They banded together because they had a common enemy: al Qaeda."[/quote]

I think Couric is selling Sugar coated bullets. and i think i saw this report...and she said it wearing a bullet proof vest.

J13P

Bikewer · 5th September 2007, 05:54 PM

Even the "Shia vs Sunni" thing is breaking down. There were several first-person reports on NPR last week detailing the Shia-on-Shia violence in a number of major cities; as different tribes, militias, and other disparate groups fight for power and control of monies, oil, civil administration, and so forth.
This is not religious sectarianism; it's simple power and money concerns.

Evidently corruption is so deeply ingrained that there appears little hope of rooting it out in the near future. The ministries responsible for investigating such charges are the ones the most deeply into it, by all accounts. The Interior Ministry is especially problematic.

The police forces across the country are in such a terrible state that a number of US lawmakers back from visiting recently have proposed tossing out the lot and starting over.
A recent report (Hell, I listen to NPR all day in the squad car....) on a visit to the Baghdad police headquarters detailed that the entire building is separated by sect and militia from floor to floor....With armed groups eying each other nervously all day.

Many billions of dollars in "aid" and "reconstruction" monies are simply....missing.
Progress.....It's grand.

FireGarden · 6th September 2007, 12:53 AM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

They are basically admitting that, even if we stipulate that there has been improvement in Iraq, it hasn't been because of the surge, but because the Iraqis have taken a bigger role in fighting the insurgents.

Good point.
The Iraqis haven't changed their behaviour much. The Americans have moved to supporting militias -- even if those militias aren't directly involved in the central government. ie: it's not just the Iraqi army which is stepping up.

plumjam · 6th September 2007, 04:35 AM

If Iraq had invaded and occupied the USA I'm sure, 4 years later, there'd have been some "pockets of peace and stability" in, say, Montana, Nevada, Alaska, Wyoming, Idaho etc...
Whereas I suggest Washington D.C., New York City, L.A. and Chicago might look a little different.

Plus, if you destroy something and then some years later finally make some headway in reconstructing it, does that really constitute "progress"?

stanleywinthrop · 6th September 2007, 05:16 AM

Originally Posted by plumjam

If Iraq had invaded and occupied the USA I'm sure, 4 years later, there'd have been some "pockets of peace and stability" in, say, Montana, Nevada, Alaska, Wyoming, Idaho etc...
Whereas I suggest Washington D.C., New York City, L.A. and Chicago might look a little different.

Plus, if you destroy something and then some years later finally make some headway in reconstructing it, does that really constitute "progress"?

I take you've never met some of the locals in Montana, Nevada, Wyoming or Idaho Eh?

By the way, I see no one has read this yet:

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/200...tribal-revolt/

Garrette · 6th September 2007, 05:20 AM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

More to the point, aren't they basically admitting that the key to success is to get the Iraqis to play a bigger role? How does that support the contention that we need to keep our troops there? How does support the contention that the "surge" did any good?

They are basically admitting that, even if we stipulate that there has been improvement in Iraq, it hasn't been because of the surge, but because the Iraqis have taken a bigger role in fighting the insurgents.

This has always been key to conducting a counterinsurgency. Given that the Iraq mess is more than a simple insurgency, I'm not suggesting that we have no achieved a magical solution, just that this step is necessary if there ever will be a magical solution.

Garrette · 6th September 2007, 05:22 AM

Originally Posted by stanleywinthrop

By the way, I see no one has read this yet:

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/200...tribal-revolt/

Thank you. I periodically check on the SWJ but had missed this.

RandFan · 6th September 2007, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by plumjam

If Iraq had invaded and occupied the USA I'm sure, 4 years later, there'd have been some "pockets of peace and stability" in, say, Montana, Nevada, Alaska, Wyoming, Idaho etc...
Whereas I suggest Washington D.C., New York City, L.A. and Chicago might look a little different.

Plus, if you destroy something and then some years later finally make some headway in reconstructing it, does that really constitute "progress"?

You have a point. Iraq was in such good shape prior to the war. There was sound infrastructure and the people where in really good shape.

Oh, I forgot, and the insurgents played no part in the distruction.

DRBUZZ0 · 6th September 2007, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by plumjam

If Iraq had invaded and occupied the USA I'm sure, 4 years later, there'd have been some "pockets of peace and stability" in, say, Montana, Nevada, Alaska, Wyoming, Idaho etc...
Whereas I suggest Washington D.C., New York City, L.A. and Chicago might look a little different.

Plus, if you destroy something and then some years later finally make some headway in reconstructing it, does that really constitute "progress"?

To be fair the infrastructure was always crap. In the shia areas they had open pit sewers and the electricity was never at all reliable anywhere except for the palaces of Sadam and the higher ups.

You have to consider that there was a lot of inequality in how things were built and run. The Shias and some of the less well liked Sunnis tended to get the shaft a lot. Now they are trying to divide the inadequate generating capacity and funding and other factors relatively equally...

Of course, this is not really something that the the Iraqis tend to see as "equal."

Everyone always hated eachother and wanted their neighbor dead in Iraq, but the fact that things were ruled with an iron fist kept some sort of stablitity.

Although not all that much... there were more than a few uprisings and riots and stuff. The Kurds caused a lot of problems, until the problem area got gassed

hgc · 6th September 2007, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by The Painter

You must have liked what he said. You didn't disavow CBS until now.

You know this how?

shecky · 7th September 2007, 12:57 AM

It might be possible Katie is mistaken.

Experts doubt Drop In Violence in Iraq

Quote:

The U.S. military's claim that violence has decreased sharply in Iraq in recent months has come under scrutiny from many experts within and outside the government, who contend that some of the underlying statistics are questionable and selectively ignore negative trends. [...]

The intelligence community has its own problems with military calculations. Intelligence analysts computing aggregate levels of violence against civilians for the NIE puzzled over how the military designated attacks as combat, sectarian or criminal, according to one senior intelligence official in Washington. "If a bullet went through the back of the head, it's sectarian," the official said. "If it went through the front, it's criminal."

The GAO wasn't very optimistic, either.

Quote:

One of eight political benchmarks -- the protection of the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi legislature -- has been achieved, according to the draft. On the others, including legislation on constitutional reform, new oil laws and de-Baathification, it assesses failure.

Overall, the draft report, titled "Securing, Stabilizing and Rebuilding Iraq," says that the Iraqi government has met only two security benchmarks. It contradicts the Bush administration's conclusion in July that sectarian violence was decreasing as a result of the U.S. military's stepped-up operations in Baghdad this year. "The average number of daily attacks against civilians remained about the same over the last six months; 25 in February versus 26 in July," the GAO draft states.

Ultimately, no minds will change. If the surge is working, then it's an excuse to see it through. If it isn't working, it's because we need to throw more resources at it. But the fact remains. Iraq was a colossal screw up
in American foreign policy, and as a result, any action the US takes will have ugly consequences.

DRBUZZ0 · 7th September 2007, 06:59 AM

I'd say we may as well give the surge a chance. I'm not saying that in a light kind of way because obviously the troops lives are always in danger, but given how fubared it is over there it's worthwhile to try anything that has the potential of giving even the slightest stability.

I really hope Iraq is improving and violence is dropping, that would be great, but I highly doubt it is happening. Just the same, if it does happen I'm glad for that. Even if we shouldn't be there in the first place... we are there now and we should at least see if there's some way to clean up this mess.

pgwenthold · 7th September 2007, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Overall, the draft report, titled "Securing, Stabilizing and Rebuilding Iraq," says that the Iraqi government has met only two security benchmarks. It contradicts the Bush administration's conclusion in July that sectarian violence was decreasing as a result of the U.S. military's stepped-up operations in Baghdad this year. "The average number of daily attacks against civilians remained about the same over the last six months; 25 in February versus 26 in July," the GAO draft states.

OK, show of hands: how many people realized that Iraq has had an average of 25 attacks on civilians [daily]?

I am shocked. I listen to Rachel Maddow a lot, and every day she recounts soldier and civilian deaths. However, even given that she has probably the most complete coverage of these daily activities in Iraq of anyone in standard media, she never gets near 25. Heck, most days she will just rattle off 5 attacks or so. But now the GAO says that there has been an average of 26 per day in July! Wow, we certainly aren't hearing everything, are we?

DRBUZZ0 · 7th September 2007, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

OK, show of hands: how many people realized that Iraq has had an average of 25 attacks on civilians [daily]?

I am shocked. I listen to Rachel Maddow a lot, and every day she recounts soldier and civilian deaths. However, even given that she has probably the most complete coverage of these daily activities in Iraq of anyone in standard media, she never gets near 25. Heck, most days she will just rattle off 5 attacks or so. But now the GAO says that there has been an average of 26 per day in July! Wow, we certainly aren't hearing everything, are we?

Um... I'm not sure the context of "attacks" whether that means "Successful attacks" or whether that counts major attacks, like bombing a market in the same number as more minor incidents like an armed robbery.

Well... um... at least it hasn't gone up by much? eh?

I tend to think Iraq *could* be stabilized. If you started recruiting foreign mercenary troops and paying well, maybe you could just fill the country with tens of millions of troops. You could have such tight controls that there would be little opportunity to attack... of course, that begs the question of "What does this accomplish. We said this was freedom and democracy."

But I do think that if you expended enough resources and did a world war II + The Marshall Plan + Moonshot sort of level project, then it *could* be done.

At some point you'd get to where soldiers and military vehicles could fill most of baghdad shoulder-to-shoulder and thus it would be tough to move enough to attack...

But I just don't think the American people are willing to expend more lives and more money on something that it not showing good results, let alone lots more lives and money.

4th September 2007, 08:00 PM	#1
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,259	Progress in Iraq? Say it ain't so Katie. Couric: 'Real Progress' In Iraq CBS) BAGHDAD, Iraq One week before Gen. David Petraeus is expected to give his report on U.S. progress in Iraq, CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric says she has already seen dramatic improvements in the country. "We hear so much about things going bad, but real progress has been made there in terms of security and stability," Couric said Tuesday. "I mean, obviously, infrastructure problems abound, but Sunnis and U.S. forces are working together. They banded together because they had a common enemy: al Qaeda."
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

4th September 2007, 09:43 PM	#2
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,758	First of all, I really hope she's right. Secondly, I have to ask: does 'real progress' mean the boys can come home sooner, or that they have to stay longer? It seems that there has never been any point in this war when someone wasn't assuring us that 'real progress' was being made.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

5th September 2007, 12:00 AM	#4
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	Of course there's progress in Iraq, however political reconciliation is so important that any progress is negligible in comparison.
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944

5th September 2007, 01:00 AM	#5
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,259	Originally Posted by davefoc The other way to view that fact is that there have been pockets of peace and normalcy in Iraq for a long time and taking somebody around and showing them pockets of peace and normalcy as evidence of improvement in the overall Iraqi situation is bogus. Given that we are talking about Katie Couric you are probably right.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

5th September 2007, 01:07 AM	#6
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	Originally Posted by RandFan Given that we are talking about Katie Couric you are probably right. Anbar wasn't a pocket of peace.
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944

4th September 2007, 11:51 PM	#3
davefoc Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: orange country, california Posts: 7,255	I think there is one aspect about Iraq that Bush and others have been right about for awhile. Iraq has pockets of significant normalcy and peace. This is a fact which cuts two ways with respect to Couric's comments. On the one had it bolsters the notion that things aren't as bad as they seem based on the daily drum beat of reported killings. The other way to view that fact is that there have been pockets of peace and normalcy in Iraq for a long time and taking somebody around and showing them pockets of peace and normalcy as evidence of improvement in the overall Iraqi situation is bogus.

5th September 2007, 02:08 AM	#7
FireGarden Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Spannungsbogen -- without a visa Posts: 5,043	Originally Posted by RandFan [...] but Sunnis and U.S. forces are working together. They banded together because they had a common enemy: al Qaeda." They've had a common enemy for a long time. http://www.aina.org/news/2007032293837.htm Quote: […] on October 12, 2006, Islamist websites posted a video by “Sheikh Osama Al-Iraqi,” who appeared masked and was identified as “one of the jihad commanders in the Land of the Two Rivers.” Abu Osama Al-Iraqi called upon bin Laden to renounce Al-Qaeda because it targets and kills Sunni civilians and Sunni jihad fighters belonging to other factions. He also accused Al-Qaeda of cooperating with the “Crusaders” and with the Shi’ites. While declaring his loyalty to bin Laden, Al-Iraqi criticized him for appointing a non-Iraqi [namely Abu Hamza Al-Muhajir] to head Al-Qaeda in Iraq. So they were against al-Qaeda -- to the extent of accusing them of cooperating with the "Crusaders" and the Iranians -- and had even asked bin Laden to renounce al-Qaeda. Perhaps with a view to setting up an organisation which didn't hamper Sunni attempts to fight the "Crusaders" -- but still against al-Qaeda as it was/is. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081301209.html (Aug 2005) Quote: Rising up against insurgent leader Abu Musab Zarqawi, Iraqi Sunni Muslims in Ramadi fought with grenade launchers and automatic weapons Saturday to defend their Shiite neighbors against a bid to drive them from the western city, Sunni leaders and Shiite residents said. The fighting came as the U.S. military announced the deaths of six American soldiers. So some Sunnis were fighting al-Qaeda from Aug 2005. America has started backing Sunni militias. They want to point to something positive so they give you something that has existed for a couple of years, but not been made a fuss of: Sunnis fighting al-Qaeda.
	__________________ When Americans talk about freedom, it’s our secular code word for salvation. There’s no salvation outside the church; there’s no freedom outside the American way of life. -- James Carroll B'tselem Tony Karon's blog

5th September 2007, 03:42 AM	#8
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 13,014	Here's more from Couric: Quote: BOB SCHIEFFER, HOST: Katie, what are you impressions after being there on the scene? We’ve all followed this for years from afar but once you’re there — anything surprise you in particular? KATIE COURIC: Well I was surprised, you know, after I went to Eastern Baghad. I was taken to the Allawi market which is near Haifa street which was the scene of that very bloody gun battle back in January and you know this market seemed to be thriving and there were a lot of people out and about. A lot of family owned businesses and vegetable stalls and so you do see signs of life that seem to be normal. Of course that’s what the U.S. military wants me to see so you have to keep that in mind as well. On one level, Couric knows that she's getting a stage-managed view of Iraq. Too bad she doesn't apply a little skepticism in her reporting rather than playing the part of willing propagandist. Contrast this was her predecessor, Walter Cronkite, telling it like it was re Vietnam in 1968. So much of the illustrious CBS News.
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert

5th September 2007, 08:16 AM	#9
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 12,069	Originally Posted by FireGarden America has started backing Sunni militias. They want to point to something positive so they give you something that has existed for a couple of years, but not been made a fuss of: Sunnis fighting al-Qaeda. More to the point, aren't they basically admitting that the key to success is to get the Iraqis to play a bigger role? How does that support the contention that we need to keep our troops there? How does support the contention that the "surge" did any good? They are basically admitting that, even if we stipulate that there has been improvement in Iraq, it hasn't been because of the surge, but because the Iraqis have taken a bigger role in fighting the insurgents.
	__________________ "Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay." (Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)

5th September 2007, 09:14 AM	#10
Gurdur Person Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 4,875	Originally Posted by corplinx Anbar wasn't a pocket of peace. I'm quite willing to believe the Coalition forces have been successful in calming down certain areas -- for a limited time being. However all overall trends point to overall failure, not success, and continuing breakdown.
Gurdur Person Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 4,875

5th September 2007, 09:33 AM	#11
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	Originally Posted by Gurdur I'm quite willing to believe the Coalition forces have been successful in calming down certain areas -- for a limited time being. However all overall trends point to overall failure, not success, and continuing breakdown. Which is essentially what I said in my previous post. In that one, I was responding the very unskeptical claim that Couric was just seeing the same pockets of peace she had seen before.
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944

5th September 2007, 10:07 AM	#12
Cain Straussian Join Date: May 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 6,937	I realize high school was long ago and does not determine who you are, who you're going to be, etc etc etc, but seriously, who was Katie Couric high school? I'm betting all of her classmates would have laughed at the idea she would become a trustworthy journalist. She's such a light-weight.
	__________________ *Arrested Development* is coming back! Michael (to GOB): Get rid of the Seaward. Lucille: I’ll leave when I’m good and ready.

5th September 2007, 11:41 AM	#13
stanleywinthrop Scholar Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 121	Here's some reading by an Australian named David Kilcullen for those interested: http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/200...tribal-revolt/ an excerpt: Quote: Some tribal leaders told me that the split started over women. This is not as odd as it sounds. One of AQ’s standard techniques, which I have seen them apply in places as diverse as Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Indonesia, is to marry leaders and key operatives to women from prominent tribal families. The strategy works by creating a bond with the community, exploiting kinship-based alliances, and so “embedding” the AQ network into the society. Over time, this makes AQ part of the social landscape, allows them to manipulate local people and makes it harder for outsiders to pry the network apart from the population.
stanleywinthrop Scholar Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 121	Last edited by stanleywinthrop; 5th September 2007 at 11:47 AM.

5th September 2007, 02:14 PM	#14
The Painter Banned Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: New York Posts: 2,656	Originally Posted by hgc So much of the illustrious CBS News. This is what does it for you??? How about when Dan Rather so wanted forged documents to be true, that he reported them as true. False, forged crap. That didn't do it for you??? OH, you probably wanted that to be true also. I'll bet you still believe them. Couric reports something that is true and you reject it. Dismissed as propaganda. You're a piece of work. All the spin in here is making me dizzy.

5th September 2007, 03:54 PM	#15
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 13,014	Originally Posted by The Painter This is what does it for you??? How about when Dan Rather so wanted forged documents to be true, that he reported them as true. False, forged crap. That didn't do it for you??? OH, you probably wanted that to be true also. I'll bet you still believe them. You're making assumptions about what I thought of Dan Rather and the phony documents regarding Bush's desertion during Vietnam. Why don't you find things out before you run from the room with your hair on fire? Quote: Couric reports something that is true and you reject it. Dismissed as propaganda. You're a piece of work. If Couric is reporting that the situation is improving in Iraq or that the "surge" is meeting its stated goals, then that's not true. Again, you are making unreasonable assumptions. Quote: All the spin in here is making me dizzy. Poor you. Getting the vapors? Then you can restrict your associations to similarly deluded souls. You'll be much better off.
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert

5th September 2007, 04:13 PM	#16
DRBUZZ0 Banned Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: The Command Bunker Posts: 3,320	I spent some time recently talking with a couple of friends who had just come back from serving in Iraq. It was really... surprising some of the things they told me about their experience there. What surprised me the most is that they said the Iraqi people don't really hate Americans but what they don't like is that Americans keep trying to stop them from killing other Iraqis. He said it was like "getting caught in the cross fire" Basically the Sunis seem to think "Can we get the Americans to leave so we can kill all the Shias and take back our country like we're supposed to." Whereas the Shias figure that it's their country because they have the majority and the Sunis were the ones who artificially kept power. So their stand is "Can we just get the Americans out so we can kill the Sunis" There is progress... in terms of building infrastructure and such. The electricity and sewers and government buildings are better than they were. But the problem is that when you build a school in a suni region the Shias go nuts and vicr versa. No matter how much you try to cater to both they have a fit when they see the other side getting anything. As for the Kurds, they've all left for the Kurdish region, which is where most were. That area is doing okay, relatively speaking. And it's reasonably sorta peaceful in the Suni or Shia regions... as long as they aren't mixed. But Baghdad you have a lot of crowding and the groups are too close togeather. It's a very packed city. Also, about 80-90% of the population would be okay with some kind of ceasefire and probably wants that. Most Shias and most Suns would be willing to say "I hate the other side, but I'm willing to at least try to live with them if I have to." But that doesn't really matter, because as long as you have 10%-20% who would rather die than entertain the thoughts of a truce of any kind at all... well... it ain't happening. On top of this, you have to figure that having Sunis and Shias together in the police or security forces doesn't work too well eithier. Some of the Iraqi forces are okay, but in general, you are best off not giving them too much trust. Many are incompetant. One of the guys did say there was an exception. The Iraqi Special Forces are badass.. they're professional and get the job done. They take orders and don't let you down in general. Ironically, these are basically the guys from Sadam Huesine's military who have been reassembled. There aren't enough though, because most of the original Iraqi military (now disbanded) were never very professional. It's strange that indeed much of the nation is not that bad, but the cities and the regions on the borders of ethnic zones are hell. But I suppose if you want to measure success by means of cell phone service, power lines and sewage treatment plants, we're doing stellar!

5th September 2007, 04:23 PM	#17
The Painter Banned Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: New York Posts: 2,656	Originally Posted by hgc You're making assumptions about what I thought of Dan Rather and the phony documents regarding Bush's desertion during Vietnam. Why don't you find things out before you run from the room with your hair on fire? You must have liked what he said. You didn't disavow CBS until now. Originally Posted by hgc If Couric is reporting that the situation is improving in Iraq or that the "surge" is meeting its stated goals, then that's not true. Again, you are making unreasonable assumptions. And you know it's not true because.....? You don't want it to be, or are you making assumptions? Originally Posted by hgc Poor you. Getting the vapors? Then you can restrict your associations to similarly deluded souls. You'll be much better off. My deluded souls can beat up your deluded souls.

5th September 2007, 04:47 PM	#18
John 13 New Blood Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Chicago Posts: 13	CBS) BAGHDAD, Iraq One week before Gen. David Petraeus is expected to give his report on U.S. progress in Iraq, CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric says she has already seen dramatic improvements in the country. "We hear so much about things going bad, but real progress has been made there in terms of security and stability," Couric said Tuesday. "I mean, obviously, infrastructure problems abound, but Sunnis and U.S. forces are working together. They banded together because they had a common enemy: al Qaeda."[/quote] I think Couric is selling Sugar coated bullets. and i think i saw this report...and she said it wearing a bullet proof vest. J13P

5th September 2007, 05:54 PM	#19
Bikewer Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: St. Louis, Mo. Posts: 9,528	Even the "Shia vs Sunni" thing is breaking down. There were several first-person reports on NPR last week detailing the Shia-on-Shia violence in a number of major cities; as different tribes, militias, and other disparate groups fight for power and control of monies, oil, civil administration, and so forth. This is not religious sectarianism; it's simple power and money concerns. Evidently corruption is so deeply ingrained that there appears little hope of rooting it out in the near future. The ministries responsible for investigating such charges are the ones the most deeply into it, by all accounts. The Interior Ministry is especially problematic. The police forces across the country are in such a terrible state that a number of US lawmakers back from visiting recently have proposed tossing out the lot and starting over. A recent report (Hell, I listen to NPR all day in the squad car....) on a visit to the Baghdad police headquarters detailed that the entire building is separated by sect and militia from floor to floor....With armed groups eying each other nervously all day. Many billions of dollars in "aid" and "reconstruction" monies are simply....missing. Progress.....It's grand.

6th September 2007, 12:53 AM	#20
FireGarden Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Spannungsbogen -- without a visa Posts: 5,043	Originally Posted by pgwenthold They are basically admitting that, even if we stipulate that there has been improvement in Iraq, it hasn't been because of the surge, but because the Iraqis have taken a bigger role in fighting the insurgents. Good point. The Iraqis haven't changed their behaviour much. The Americans have moved to supporting militias -- even if those militias aren't directly involved in the central government. ie: it's not just the Iraqi army which is stepping up.
	__________________ When Americans talk about freedom, it’s our secular code word for salvation. There’s no salvation outside the church; there’s no freedom outside the American way of life. -- James Carroll B'tselem Tony Karon's blog

6th September 2007, 04:35 AM	#21
plumjam Banned Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Valencia, Spain Posts: 7,837	If Iraq had invaded and occupied the USA I'm sure, 4 years later, there'd have been some "pockets of peace and stability" in, say, Montana, Nevada, Alaska, Wyoming, Idaho etc... Whereas I suggest Washington D.C., New York City, L.A. and Chicago might look a little different. Plus, if you destroy something and then some years later finally make some headway in reconstructing it, does that really constitute "progress"?

6th September 2007, 05:16 AM	#22
stanleywinthrop Scholar Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 121	Originally Posted by plumjam If Iraq had invaded and occupied the USA I'm sure, 4 years later, there'd have been some "pockets of peace and stability" in, say, Montana, Nevada, Alaska, Wyoming, Idaho etc... Whereas I suggest Washington D.C., New York City, L.A. and Chicago might look a little different. Plus, if you destroy something and then some years later finally make some headway in reconstructing it, does that really constitute "progress"? I take you've never met some of the locals in Montana, Nevada, Wyoming or Idaho Eh? By the way, I see no one has read this yet: http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/200...tribal-revolt/
stanleywinthrop Scholar Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 121

6th September 2007, 05:20 AM	#23
Garrette Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 10,550	Originally Posted by pgwenthold More to the point, aren't they basically admitting that the key to success is to get the Iraqis to play a bigger role? How does that support the contention that we need to keep our troops there? How does support the contention that the "surge" did any good? They are basically admitting that, even if we stipulate that there has been improvement in Iraq, it hasn't been because of the surge, but because the Iraqis have taken a bigger role in fighting the insurgents. This has always been key to conducting a counterinsurgency. Given that the Iraq mess is more than a simple insurgency, I'm not suggesting that we have no achieved a magical solution, just that this step is necessary if there ever will be a magical solution.
	__________________ My kids still love me.

6th September 2007, 05:22 AM	#24
Garrette Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 10,550	Originally Posted by stanleywinthrop By the way, I see no one has read this yet: http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/200...tribal-revolt/ Thank you. I periodically check on the SWJ but had missed this.
	__________________ My kids still love me.

6th September 2007, 02:33 PM	#25
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,259	Originally Posted by plumjam If Iraq had invaded and occupied the USA I'm sure, 4 years later, there'd have been some "pockets of peace and stability" in, say, Montana, Nevada, Alaska, Wyoming, Idaho etc... Whereas I suggest Washington D.C., New York City, L.A. and Chicago might look a little different. Plus, if you destroy something and then some years later finally make some headway in reconstructing it, does that really constitute "progress"? You have a point. Iraq was in such good shape prior to the war. There was sound infrastructure and the people where in really good shape. Oh, I forgot, and the insurgents played no part in the distruction.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

6th September 2007, 04:19 PM	#26
DRBUZZ0 Banned Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: The Command Bunker Posts: 3,320	Originally Posted by plumjam If Iraq had invaded and occupied the USA I'm sure, 4 years later, there'd have been some "pockets of peace and stability" in, say, Montana, Nevada, Alaska, Wyoming, Idaho etc... Whereas I suggest Washington D.C., New York City, L.A. and Chicago might look a little different. Plus, if you destroy something and then some years later finally make some headway in reconstructing it, does that really constitute "progress"? To be fair the infrastructure was always crap. In the shia areas they had open pit sewers and the electricity was never at all reliable anywhere except for the palaces of Sadam and the higher ups. You have to consider that there was a lot of inequality in how things were built and run. The Shias and some of the less well liked Sunnis tended to get the shaft a lot. Now they are trying to divide the inadequate generating capacity and funding and other factors relatively equally... Of course, this is not really something that the the Iraqis tend to see as "equal." Everyone always hated eachother and wanted their neighbor dead in Iraq, but the fact that things were ruled with an iron fist kept some sort of stablitity. Although not all that much... there were more than a few uprisings and riots and stuff. The Kurds caused a lot of problems, until the problem area got gassed

6th September 2007, 04:32 PM	#27
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 13,014	Originally Posted by The Painter You must have liked what he said. You didn't disavow CBS until now. You know this how?
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert

7th September 2007, 12:57 AM	#28
shecky Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Location: Home of the Homeless Posts: 2,190	It might be possible Katie is mistaken. Experts doubt Drop In Violence in Iraq Quote: The U.S. military's claim that violence has decreased sharply in Iraq in recent months has come under scrutiny from many experts within and outside the government, who contend that some of the underlying statistics are questionable and selectively ignore negative trends. [...] The intelligence community has its own problems with military calculations. Intelligence analysts computing aggregate levels of violence against civilians for the NIE puzzled over how the military designated attacks as combat, sectarian or criminal, according to one senior intelligence official in Washington. "If a bullet went through the back of the head, it's sectarian," the official said. "If it went through the front, it's criminal." The GAO wasn't very optimistic, either. Quote: One of eight political benchmarks -- the protection of the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi legislature -- has been achieved, according to the draft. On the others, including legislation on constitutional reform, new oil laws and de-Baathification, it assesses failure. Overall, the draft report, titled "Securing, Stabilizing and Rebuilding Iraq," says that the Iraqi government has met only two security benchmarks. It contradicts the Bush administration's conclusion in July that sectarian violence was decreasing as a result of the U.S. military's stepped-up operations in Baghdad this year. "The average number of daily attacks against civilians remained about the same over the last six months; 25 in February versus 26 in July," the GAO draft states. Ultimately, no minds will change. If the surge is working, then it's an excuse to see it through. If it isn't working, it's because we need to throw more resources at it. But the fact remains. Iraq was a colossal screw up in American foreign policy, and as a result, any action the US takes will have ugly consequences.
	__________________ "People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn’t have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless." - Investors Business Daily

7th September 2007, 06:59 AM	#29
DRBUZZ0 Banned Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: The Command Bunker Posts: 3,320	I'd say we may as well give the surge a chance. I'm not saying that in a light kind of way because obviously the troops lives are always in danger, but given how fubared it is over there it's worthwhile to try anything that has the potential of giving even the slightest stability. I really hope Iraq is improving and violence is dropping, that would be great, but I highly doubt it is happening. Just the same, if it does happen I'm glad for that. Even if we shouldn't be there in the first place... we are there now and we should at least see if there's some way to clean up this mess.

7th September 2007, 10:27 AM	#30
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 12,069	Quote: Overall, the draft report, titled "Securing, Stabilizing and Rebuilding Iraq," says that the Iraqi government has met only two security benchmarks. It contradicts the Bush administration's conclusion in July that sectarian violence was decreasing as a result of the U.S. military's stepped-up operations in Baghdad this year. "The average number of daily attacks against civilians remained about the same over the last six months; 25 in February versus 26 in July," the GAO draft states. OK, show of hands: how many people realized that Iraq has had an average of 25 attacks on civilians [daily]? I am shocked. I listen to Rachel Maddow a lot, and every day she recounts soldier and civilian deaths. However, even given that she has probably the most complete coverage of these daily activities in Iraq of anyone in standard media, she never gets near 25. Heck, most days she will just rattle off 5 attacks or so. But now the GAO says that there has been an average of 26 per day in July! Wow, we certainly aren't hearing everything, are we?
	__________________ "Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay." (Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)

7th September 2007, 10:53 AM	#31
DRBUZZ0 Banned Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: The Command Bunker Posts: 3,320	Originally Posted by pgwenthold OK, show of hands: how many people realized that Iraq has had an average of 25 attacks on civilians [daily]? I am shocked. I listen to Rachel Maddow a lot, and every day she recounts soldier and civilian deaths. However, even given that she has probably the most complete coverage of these daily activities in Iraq of anyone in standard media, she never gets near 25. Heck, most days she will just rattle off 5 attacks or so. But now the GAO says that there has been an average of 26 per day in July! Wow, we certainly aren't hearing everything, are we? Um... I'm not sure the context of "attacks" whether that means "Successful attacks" or whether that counts major attacks, like bombing a market in the same number as more minor incidents like an armed robbery. Well... um... at least it hasn't gone up by much? eh? I tend to think Iraq could be stabilized. If you started recruiting foreign mercenary troops and paying well, maybe you could just fill the country with tens of millions of troops. You could have such tight controls that there would be little opportunity to attack... of course, that begs the question of "What does this accomplish. We said this was freedom and democracy." But I do think that if you expended enough resources and did a world war II + The Marshall Plan + Moonshot sort of level project, then it could be done. At some point you'd get to where soldiers and military vehicles could fill most of baghdad shoulder-to-shoulder and thus it would be tough to move enough to attack... But I just don't think the American people are willing to expend more lives and more money on something that it not showing good results, let alone lots more lives and money.