CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Political Progress in Iraq
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Political Progress in Iraq - Page 2

post #51 of 103
4/10/08 at 4:10pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
Noah, I don't think you understand that the only Iraqi oil sharing law that will be acceptable to Bush, Cheney and friends is the one that gives non-Iraqi multinational oil corporations control of oil in Iraq for the next 30 years.
I want an Oil Sharing Law that the three segments of Iraq could compromise on. Fear of how Oil will be divided in the future drives alot of unstability in the country.

Would you be happy if the law is revised and negoitiated some more and not brought up for a vote untill after January 2009 when the Bush Administration is out of office?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pop Zeus
What I'm saying is that if we leave, then all of a sudden all the key regional players have an above-the-table stake in Iraq. With our current occupation, the regional players have the luxury of sitting back and fiddling with the margins, keep their influence under-the-table, so to speak. They can tilt things in their favor with very little nudging because the spotlight and pressure is all on the US to perform. If Iran, Turkey, Syria et al are all of a sudden forced to deal with other directly on Iraq, then whatever they choose to do, the results of their actions (on or off the record) will be the issue. Thus, their interest and reputation as it pertains to Iraq is raised to a level that could never be achieved if the US were to stay.

That said, I'm not gonna be so naive as to say that violence won't go up should our military withdraw. It very well could go up. But what has been proven in the last few years is that political progress will not happen given the current situation, surge or not. The US leaving Iraq might suck worse for the Iraqis in the short term, but there is a chance that it could be a 'darkest before dawn' situation. Frankly, it could be the only way that Iraq resolves it's sectarian conflicts. The other advantage to withdrawing is that ,going forward, the US can legitimately claim to not have such a craven interest in controlling Iraq's oil fields. That way, should we leave and shit goes from bad to hell, our military can reenter the country without the suspicion that we're doing it for our own self-interest. Because, hey, we already gave them back their car keys and they really fucked it up.
I like your response. I could be talked into supporting it after we finish turning over the last half of the provinces to Iraqi government control and staying at least untill the upcoming Provincial and Parliamental votes have occured at the very least.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pop Zeus
I could've sworn in past threads that you were making the case for keeping troops in Iraq (or for supporting the surge for that matter) based on how it would effect the level of violence.
I do think controlling the violence is important, but mostly on how it effects achieving those other goals in Iraq. I have stated in at least one other thread that I would be okay if we left Iraq with violence still ongoing as long as the Iraqi government was capable of handling it.

America keeping violence low in Iraq over the long term with no progress by the Iraqis in Governance or in improving their Security Forces is useless. I think the progress is there in Iraq, but slower than many would like.

-------

On C-SPAN, I watched Obama in the Iraq War hearing on Tuesday night and I felt good about his statement below.

Quote:
"If... our criteria is a messy, sloppy status quo but there's not, you know, huge outbreaks of violence, there's still corruption, but the country is struggling along, but it's not a threat to its neighbours and it's not an al-Qaeda base, that seems to me an achievable goal within a measurable timeframe," he said.

He added, in what was described by the Washington Post as the quote of the day - "I'm trying to get to an end point, that's what all of us are trying to get to."
If this is what Obama at the very least wants to achieve in Iraq as President, then I could live with it. Now everybody just has to determine what troop levels are neccessary over time to achieve that. Obama threw out a number of 30,000 but I don't know if that was a serious number or just something off the top of his head.

Can Democrats and Rebublicans reach a middle ground between a fixed withdrawal timetable and a withdrawal based on conditions only?

Maybe some kind of flexible withdrawal timetable that is tied to conditions at each step. Maybe the next Administration could negoitiate this with the Iraqi government. What do you guys think?
Reply
post #52 of 103
4/24/08 at 6:45pm
Thread Starter 
It looks like al-Sadr is turning out to be the loser in Basra afterall.

The men in black vanish and Basra comes to life from "The Times" in the UK.

Quote:
Young women are daring to wear jeans, soldiers listen to pop music on their mobile phones and bands are performing at wedding parties again.

All across Iraq’s second city life is improving, a month after Iraqi troops began a surprise crackdown on the black-clad gangs who were allowed to flourish under the British military. The gunmen’s reign had enforced a strict set of religious codes.

Yet after three years of being terrified of kidnap, rape and murder – a fate that befell scores of other women – Nadyia Ahmed, 22, is among those enjoying a sense of normality, happy for the first time to attend her science course at Basra University. “I now have the university life that I heard of at high school before the war and always dreamt about,” she told The Times. “It was a nightmare because of these militiamen. I only attended class three days a week but now I look forward to going every day.”
and

Quote:
Driving through Basra in a convoy with the Iraqi general leading the Charge of the Knights operation, The Times passed Iraqi security forces manning checkpoints and patrolling the roads. Not a hostile shot was fired as the convoy turned into what was until the weekend the most notorious neighbourhood in the city. Hayaniya, a teeming slum, was a bastion for al-Mahdi Army, the main militia.

For the first time in four years local residents have been emboldened to stand up to the militants and are turning in caches of weapons. Army checkpoints have been erected across Basra and traffic police are also out in force.

The security forces have also torn down many banners supporting al-Mahdi Army as well as portraits of its leader, Moqtada al-Sadr, though some still remain in militia strongholds.

The contrast could not be more stark with the last time The Times visited Basra in December, when intimidation was rife.

Many blame the British for allowing the militias to grow. “If they sent competent Iraqi troops to Basra in the early stages it would have limited the damage that happened in our city,” said Hameed Hashim, 39, who works for the South Oil Company.
I think that this is a sign of the future for Iraq if we can finish building up and training the Iraqi Security Forces so they can control their own cities. This operation in Basra has got to give the elected Iraqi government confidence in it's own capabilities.

A Shia-led government willing to take on Shia militias has also helped in the political reconcilitaion between the Shia, Sunni & Kurdish politicians. Hopefully, this can help build more trust between them to tackle other problems together as well.
Reply
post #53 of 103
4/25/08 at 1:49pm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...rity_N.htm?123
Reply
post #54 of 103
4/25/08 at 11:00pm
Singer, why do you hate our success?
Reply
post #55 of 103
4/26/08 at 1:07pm
Hey, I actually admire Noah's optimism. I just don't share it.
Reply
post #56 of 103
5/15/08 at 5:56pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer View Post
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...rity_N.htm?123

Shortcomings of the Iraqi forces identified by report of Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction:

•A shortage of officers and non-commissioned officers.

•A reliance of Iraqi forces on the United States to provide services such as supplies and transportation.

•A need for more Iraqi troops. U.S. and Iraqi officials estimate Iraq will need between 600,000 and 646,000 forces by 2010, a 22% increase.
I agree with the jist of the article. The Iraqi Army is not yet ready to take over the security of Iraq by itself yet.

I do think that the Iraqi Army actually leading their own military operations this year in Iraq's three largest cities of Basra, Baghdad and now the one starting in Mosul is a big sign of far they have come.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer
Hey, I actually admire Noah's optimism. I just don't share it.
It looks like John McCain has about the same amount of optimism as I do. McCain Sees Troops Coming Home by 2013

Quote:
“By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom,’’ Mr. McCain said at the Columbus Convention Center. “The Iraq War has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension. Violence still occurs, but it is spasmodic and much reduced.’’

The United States, Mr. McCain added, “maintains a military presence there, but a much smaller one, and it does not play a direct combat role.’’
If the Iraqi Army continues this progress and the upcoming Iraqi Elections happened around the time they are currently scheduled, I think John McCain's prediction would come true even with a Democrat for President. As long as they don't pull out two quickly.
Reply
post #57 of 103
6/5/08 at 9:57pm
Thread Starter 
It looks like the Iraqi Government is not being thought of as just a puppet government any more. First, the French Foreign Minister made his second trip of the year to Iraq earlier this week and now the first Foreign Minister of an Arab country has arrived in Iraq to announce that they will be naming an Ambassador to Iraq and re-opening their Embassy.

UAE to name ambassador to Iraq

Quote:
The United Arab Emirates said on Thursday it will name an ambassador to Iraq within days, in the first such move by a US ally in the Gulf since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

The announcement came as UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahayan made a landmark visit to Baghdad, the first by such a high-ranking official from an Arab country in the Gulf since the US-led invasion of 2003.

"Consultations are under way between the UAE and the Iraqi government about naming the ambassador to Iraq and reopening the Emirati embassy in the next few days," Sheikh Abdullah told a press conference in Baghdad.

He said he hoped to see "an active and effective Emirati embassy in Baghdad in the coming weeks."

"We view Iraq as an important partner in the region, and we aspire to (Baghdad) being an important partner of the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council)," the Emirati news agency WAM quoted the foreign minister as saying.

The oil-rich GCC also includes Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
This is a big deal in diplomacy for the Iraqi Government. The United Arab Emirites is an economic powerhouse in the world. The city of Dubai is like the New York or London of the entire region.

It may be driven by a fear of Iranian influence in Iraq, but Arab recognition of an elected Iraqi government as legitimate is very important.
Reply
post #58 of 103
6/5/08 at 10:30pm
Well, it's about goddamn time.
Reply
post #59 of 103
6/6/08 at 3:36am
IMO, that's probably the first post that's actually been worthy of the thread title.
Reply
post #60 of 103
6/9/08 at 9:51pm
Thread Starter 
It looks like the United Arab Emirates was just the first domino of growing Arab diplomacy towards Iraq.

Now two more have quickly followed.

Bahrain to name ambassador to Iraq

Quote:
Bahrain's Foreign Minister Khaled bin Ahmad al-Khalifa said on Sunday the country is to appoint an ambassador to Iraq, days after US-ally the United Arab Emirates announced a similar move.

"Bahrain is in the process of selecting an ambassador to assume this post," the minister was quoted as saying by state-run Bahrain News Agency (BNA), adding Manama had already selected a site in Baghdad for a new embassy.
Jordan says it will send envoy to Iraq

Quote:
Jordan says it will dispatch an ambassador to Iraq, following the lead of other Arab nations.

State Minister for Information Nasser Judeh told reporters Monday the ambassador will take up his post in Baghdad "in the near future." He declined to divulge the exact date or identify the envoy.

Jordan has a diplomatic mission in Baghdad run by a charge d'affairs. It named an ambassador to Iraq nearly two years ago, but he never assumed his duties because of security concerns.
Who's next?
Reply
post #61 of 103
6/9/08 at 10:15pm
Oh man, that is outstanding. C'mon, Saudi!
Reply
post #62 of 103
6/13/08 at 4:06pm
Submitted without comment:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080613/...i_ea/iraq_us_3

EDIT: Also this -

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/...adr/index.html
Reply
post #63 of 103
6/13/08 at 5:15pm
Meanwhile, in that, you know, other war we got going on:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25146271/

Quote:
Hundreds escape in Afghan prison attack

Blast targets prison gate, Taliban militants reportedly attack guards

BREAKING NEWS
MSNBC News Services
updated 37 minutes ago

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan - Nearly all of an estimated 1,150 prisoners, including some 400 Taliban inmates, fled a prison in Kandahar on Friday after Taliban insurgents blew open the main gate, officials said.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the Taliban also fired several rockets at various parts of the mud-built prison in the province, a stronghold of the ousted Taliban movement.

A suicide car bomb targeted the prison gate, followed by an attack from Taliban militants, NBC News reported.
Yeah, just call me Sister Mary Sunshine today.
Reply
post #64 of 103
6/13/08 at 10:35pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer View Post
That's just political posturing to show future Iraqi voters that he won't be a pushover in the negotiations with the Americans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer View Post
Same old, same old. Last time I checked his strongholds in Basra and Sadr City were filled with Iraqi Army soldiers.

Quote:
Meanwhile, in that, you know, other war we got going on:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25146271/

Quote:
Hundreds escape in Afghan prison attack

Blast targets prison gate, Taliban militants reportedly attack guards

Yeah, just call me Sister Mary Sunshine today.
That does suck. The Taliban will continue to be a problem as long as they are able to grow their forces in Pakistan and retreat their when attacked by NATO.
Reply
post #65 of 103
6/13/08 at 10:47pm
Hey Noah, I would like to say that I do, in fact, respect your optimism on Iraq. You don't post often, or in many other threads, so it's kinda hard to get a read on where you really stand, but I hope you'll believe me when I say that I, too, want a successful outcome for the citizens of Iraq.

If the Bush Doctrine somehow actually ends in some sort of definable success in the Middle East, I'll do whatever Mea Culpas and Hail Mary's are required. I'm just not as optimistic as you.
Reply
post #66 of 103
6/13/08 at 10:59pm
Who gets to define success? What's the goal this week?
Reply
post #67 of 103
6/14/08 at 12:10am
It must nice to live in a fantasy world of gumdrop mountains, chocolate rivers and where everything you believe is fundamentally and profoundly wrong but you're too busy being blown by sunshine nymphs to notice.
Reply
post #68 of 103
6/14/08 at 12:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun View Post
Who gets to define success?
Vegas, natch. Call your bookie for daily odds.
Reply
post #69 of 103
6/14/08 at 12:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun View Post
Who gets to define success? What's the goal this week?
Your french genes are showing, surrendermonkey!
The level of violence in Iraq has decreased drastically in the last hour, the surge is working.
Honest.
Reply
post #70 of 103
6/14/08 at 6:34pm
Uh-oh.
Reply
post #71 of 103
6/15/08 at 12:56am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer View Post
Hey Noah, I would like to say that I do, in fact, respect your optimism on Iraq. You don't post often, or in many other threads, so it's kinda hard to get a read on where you really stand, but I hope you'll believe me when I say that I, too, want a successful outcome for the citizens of Iraq.

If the Bush Doctrine somehow actually ends in some sort of definable success in the Middle East, I'll do whatever Mea Culpas and Hail Mary's are required. I'm just not as optimistic as you.
Thanks for that. I believe that you want a successful outcome for Iraqis. You are right, I am a crazy optimist. Like most of you guys, I feel strongly about this subject. Ever since I read a long Vanity Fair article in the mid-nineties about the suffering of Iraqis under Saddam and the never-ending sanctions, I have felt something had to change there. If Iraq is not a pretty stable and peaceful democracy within 3 to 5 years, I will admit that I was completely wrong about supporting the invasion of Iraq.

It's true, I don't post in alot of threads even though I do read a great deal of them all over the forums. Most of the time, it is because someone has already posted an opinion on a subject that closely matches mine so I don't feel the need to post. I actually agree with alot of your posts on most other subjects.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Goldberg
Uh-oh.
Quote from Matt's linked article.

Quote:
Salah al-Obaidi, Sadr's chief spokesman, said the order was essentially a full-scale reorganization of the Mahdi Army, transforming it from a militia into a permanent peaceful organization with a small armed wing of several hundred or so members. He said the cease-fire for the rest of the movement would remain in force.

The new group, Sadr's statement said, would operate in "total secrecy" and attack only American forces. "The resistance will be restricted to a group authorized by a written letter from us soon," it said. "Arms will be restricted to them and they may only point them towards the occupier."
What is "Uh-oh" about this article. It appears to me from this section of the article that al-Sadr has finally decided to become more of a political movement instead of violent militant one. Several hundred armed members is just a token force, enough to act as personal protection for it's leaders.

I congratulate al-Sadr for this big step into reason. Also, his statement that his forces will only fight Americans is just a repeat of the same statement he made right before the Iraqi Army took over Sadr City. He actually said he was calling for "Open War", but he quickly retracted it within days to say he only meant Americans and not the Iraqi Army.

Speaking of the Iraqi Army....

Iraq security forces expand their campaign against the Mahdi Army

Quote:
Iraqi security forces began to move into the southern city of Amarah on Saturday, and residents braced for the latest government offensive against the Mahdi Army militia loyal to Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada Sadr.

Amarah, the capital of Maysan province, is one of the dwindling bastions of the Sadr movement in Iraq. The cleric's followers control the governing council and his militia is dominant in the streets.

Western officials believe many hard-core fighters associated with the Mahdi Army fled to the province from Basra after the government waged a campaign against what it called lawlessness in the southern port in late March.
Reply
post #72 of 103
6/15/08 at 3:24am
It just seems to me that if the way to score political points in Iraq is who can hate Americans the most, that's not good. The article's major points were that 1.) Maliki isn't cooperating with the U.S. (and who can blame him) and 2.) that Sadr is going to end the cease-fire. That's why I say, "Uh-oh."
Reply
post #73 of 103
6/15/08 at 1:43pm
Quote:
That way, should we leave and shit goes from bad to hell, our military can reenter the country without the suspicion that we're doing it for our own self-interest.
Hmf. Maybe, if they're wearing blue hats and are under the command of someone beyond the US's reach. Not us.

Given there will be a legitimate reason to re-enter Iraq in the future, why should anyone else believe the US is going to do anything other than whatever the hell it pleases once it's there?
Reply
post #74 of 103
6/16/08 at 3:10pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Goldberg View Post
It just seems to me that if the way to score political points in Iraq is who can hate Americans the most, that's not good. The article's major points were that 1.) Maliki isn't cooperating with the U.S. (and who can blame him)
I am glad that you agree he is just trying to score points with some political posturing. Iraqi's are a proud people and they want their government to stick up for itself. It is completely natural.

I don't know why you jump to the conclusion that it equals hating America.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Goldberg View Post
2.) that Sadr is going to end the cease-fire. That's why I say, "Uh-oh."
The same article says the cease-fire will remain in place for the rest of his organization. I think he is just trying to save face with the announcement of his "secret" hundreds of fighters after his militias lost control of three strongholds to the Iraqi Army. His statement that he will only target Americans is old news.
Reply
post #75 of 103
6/16/08 at 11:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahtheStud View Post
I am glad that you agree he is just trying to score points with some political posturing. Iraqi's are a proud people and they want their government to stick up for itself. It is completely natural.

I don't know why you jump to the conclusion that it equals hating America.
Who else are they going to stick up for themselves against? We're the occupiers, it's only natural that when it comes time to sock big brother in the jaw, we'll be taking the blow.
Reply
post #76 of 103
6/17/08 at 12:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David View Post
Who else are they going to stick up for themselves against? We're the occupiers, it's only natural that when it comes time to sock big brother in the jaw, we'll be taking the blow.
Now now Greg, "liberators" the term is "liberators".
Reply
post #77 of 103
6/20/08 at 6:07am
Thread Starter 
Some amazing photos on the Boston Globe website taken in Sadr City, Iraq during May and June 2008.

Daily Life in Sadr City, Iraq

The 14th one down of the little Iraqi boy holding his two plastic guns as he faces an American soldier is a powerful image.

I also like the one of the Iraqis celebrating their soccer win over China.
Reply
post #78 of 103
6/23/08 at 4:05pm
Thread Starter 
It looks like another Iraqi Province is going to be handed over to Iraqi Security Control on Saturday. This one is a biggie, Anbar Province. The largest province of Iraq that was also the heart of the "Sunni Triangle" and the location of the most deadliest battles for American troops. Mostly in the cities of Fallujah and Ramadi.

This is the biggest result of the successful Awakening Movement which decided to align with American Forces instead of Al-Qaeda.

US military to hand back Sunni bastion of Anbar to Iraq

Quote:
The US military is to hand over security control of the former Sunni insurgent bastion of Anbar province to Iraqi forces in the next 10 days, a US military spokesman announced on Monday.

"The handover of Anbar is expected to take place in the next 10 days," Lieutenant David Russell told AFP, declining to provide an exact date.

Anbar would be the tenth of Iraq's 18 provinces to be handed back to Iraqi forces by the US-led coalition amid a push to transfer security control of the entire country back to Baghdad.

Anbar province in western Iraq, the country's largest, was the epicentre of a brutal Sunni Arab-led fight against the US military after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003.

In the early years of the insurgency, US forces fought raging battles in the province, especially in the capital Ramadi and the nearby city of Fallujah.
It will be important to see how well a majority Shiite Government in Baghdad governs the mostly Sunni province. It is a big test for the furture stability of Iraq.
Reply
post #79 of 103
6/23/08 at 4:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahtheStud View Post
It looks like another Iraqi Province is going to be handed over to Iraqi Security Control on Saturday. This one is a biggie, Anbar Province. The largest province of Iraq that was also the heart of the "Sunni Triangle" and the location of the most deadliest battles for American troops. Mostly in the cities of Fallujah and Ramadi.

This is the biggest result of the successful Awakening Movement which decided to align with American Forces instead of Al-Qaeda.

US military to hand back Sunni bastion of Anbar to Iraq



It will be important to see how well a majority Shiite Government in Baghdad governs the mostly Sunni province. It is a big test for the furture stability of Iraq.
Out fucking standing!
Reply
post #80 of 103
6/23/08 at 7:24pm
McCain offers $300 million for new auto battery

http://green.yahoo.com/news/ap/20080..._energy_9.html


Quote:
In addition, a so-called Clean Car Challenge would encourage U.S. automakers to develop zero-emission vehicles by offering consumers the incentive of a $5,000 tax credit when they purchase one.
Reply
post #81 of 103
6/23/08 at 7:40pm
Wrong thread, eenin.
Reply
post #82 of 103
6/23/08 at 7:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer View Post
Wrong thread, eenin.
crap
Reply
post #83 of 103
6/23/08 at 11:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahtheStud View Post
It looks like another Iraqi Province is going to be handed over to Iraqi Security Control on Saturday. This one is a biggie, Anbar Province. The largest province of Iraq that was also the heart of the "Sunni Triangle" and the location of the most deadliest battles for American troops. Mostly in the cities of Fallujah and Ramadi.
Most deadliest? Wow.
Reply
post #84 of 103
6/24/08 at 1:41pm
Two U.S. Soldiers Killed as Iraqi Council Member Opens Fire After Meeting

Hearts and minds, people. Hearts and minds.

I like the way the article says the guy opened fire on occupation forces without provocation. They're foreign occupiers, of course there's provocation.
Reply
post #85 of 103
6/24/08 at 1:42pm
What?
Reply
post #86 of 103
6/24/08 at 1:55pm
What what?
Reply
post #87 of 103
6/24/08 at 5:13pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062302050.html
Reply
post #88 of 103
6/24/08 at 8:12pm
Nonconcur? Haven't seen that word for a while.
Reply
post #89 of 103
6/25/08 at 12:33am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster View Post
I agree that a post-surge strategy needs to be developed. Thanks for posting this, Prankster.

Here is the Summary Page of the GAO report cited in the article above.

Quote:
Since 2001, Congress has appropriated about $640 billion for the global war on terrorism, the majority of this for operations in Iraq. In January 2007, the President announced The New Way Forward to stem violence in Iraq and enable the Iraqi government to foster national reconciliation. This new strategy established goals and objectives to achieve over 12 to 18 months, or by July 2008.

GAO discusses progress in meeting key goals in The New Way Forward: (1) improve security conditions; (2) develop capable Iraqi security forces; and help the Iraqi government (3) enact key legislation, (4) spend capital budgets, and (5) provide essential services. GAO also discusses U.S. strategies for Iraq.

GAO reviewed documents and interviewed officials from U.S. agencies, the United Nations, and the Iraqi government. GAO also had staff stationed in Baghdad. Since May 2003, GAO has issued over 130 Iraq-related audits, which provided baseline information for this assessment. GAO prepared this report under the Comptroller General's authority.

The New Way Forward responded to failures in prior strategies that prematurely transferred security responsibilities to Iraqi forces or belatedly responded to growing sectarian violence. Overall violence, as measured by enemy-initiated attacks, fell about 70 percent in Iraq, from about 180 attacks per day in June 2007 to about 50 attacks per day in February 2008.

Security gains have largely resulted from (1) the increase in U.S. combat forces, (2) the creation of nongovernmental security forces such as Sons of Iraq, and (3) the Mahdi Army's declaration of a cease fire. Average daily attacks were at higher levels in March and April before declining in May 2008. The security environment remains volatile and dangerous. The number of trained Iraqi forces has increased from 323,000 in January 2007 to 478,000 in May 2008; many units are leading counterinsurgency operations. However, the Department of Defense reported in March 2008 that the number of Iraqi units capable of performing operations without U.S. assistance has remained at about 10 percent. Several factors have complicated the development of capable security forces, including the lack of a single unified force, sectarian and militia influences, and continued dependence on U.S. and coalition forces.

The Iraqi government has enacted key legislation to return some Ba'athists to government, give amnesty to detained Iraqis, and define provincial powers. However, it has not yet enacted other important legislation for sharing oil resources or holding provincial elections. Efforts to complete the constitutional review have also stalled. A goal of The New Way Forward was to facilitate the Iraqis' efforts to enact all key legislation by the end of 2007.

Between 2005 and 2007, Iraq spent only 24 percent of the $27 billion it budgeted for its own reconstruction efforts. More specifically, Iraq's central ministries, responsible for security and essential services, spent only 11 percent of their capital investment budgets in 2007--down from similarly low rates of 14 and 13 percent in the 2 prior years. Violence and sectarian strife, shortage of skilled labor, and weak procurement and budgeting systems have hampered Iraq's efforts to spend its capital budgets.

Although oil production has improved for short periods, the May 2008 production level of about 2.5 million barrels per day (mbpd) was below the U.S. goal of 3 mbpd. The daily supply of electricity met only about half of demand in early May 2008. Conversely, State reports that U.S. goals for Iraq's water sector are close to being reached. The unstable security environment, corruption, and lack of technical capacity have contributed to the shortfalls.

The Departments disagreed with our recommendation, stating that The New Way Forward strategy remains valid but the strategy shall be reviewed and refined as necessary. We reaffirm the need for an updated strategy given the important changes that have occurred in Iraq since January 2007. An updated strategy should build on recent gains, address unmet goals and objectives and articulate the U.S. strategy beyond July 2008.
Hopefully the next President will work hard on crafting such a strategy.

Here is what is says under the header, What GAO Recommends:

Quote:
GAO recommends that the Departments of Defense and State, in conjunction with revelant U.S. agencies, develop an updated strategy for Iraq that defines U.S. goals and objectives after July 2008 and addresses the long-term goal of achieving an Iraq that can govern, defend, and substain itself.
Reply
post #90 of 103
6/25/08 at 10:20am
Shouldn't all of this been done before the "surge" started?
Reply
post #91 of 103
6/25/08 at 4:15pm
It wasn't an election year then.
Reply
post #92 of 103
6/25/08 at 6:36pm
Thread Starter 
I am glad that the GAO Report brought up the readiness of the Iraqi Forces. I think there has been some confusion between their number and the Pentagon's.

Quote:
The Pentagon said the GAO chose a "misleading" measurement of Iraqi security capabilities -- that only 10 percent of Iraqi units had reached full operational readiness. A better measurement, it said, was the number of Iraqi units "in the lead" in joint operations, which it put at 70 percent.
I actually think both numbers are important to track for different reasons.

If you are mostly concerned with the effectiveness of the counter-insurgency strategy, then the 70% of the Iraqi Forces "in the lead" is an important statistic. The operations of the Iraqi Army in Basra, Sadr City, Mosul and Amara with logistical, special forces and air support of Americans have shown this to be correct.

If you are mostly concerned about when American troops can pull out of Iraq, then the 10% of Iraqi Units reaching full operational readiness is an important number to look at. This percentage needs to grow by a lot more before we can leave.

Quote:
Originally Posted by donde
Shouldn't all of this been done before the "surge" started?
I don't know how accurate/effective a post-surge plan would have been before the surge actually happened. A lot of politicians' post-surge plans would have been a withdrawal of all Americans troops because they expected the surge to be a complete failure. I remember a poster in this forum calling it a "Hail Mary Pass" by Bush.

I think the SOFA agreement being negoitiated now is part of a post-surge plan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David View Post
It wasn't an election year then.
The surge plan was presented to the public after the 2006 election in 2007. If anything, it was a lame-duck strategy instead of an election year ploy.
Reply
post #93 of 103
6/25/08 at 9:52pm
I'm interested to learn how they gauge full operational readiness. In the Navy, all squadrons went to an "unready" status after about a month at sea. Even though they were out there doing the mission, they weren't doing enough training missions to check all the readiness blocks.

This led me to believe that readiness numbers are unreliable. Hence, my interest.
Reply
post #94 of 103
6/25/08 at 10:34pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti View Post
I'm interested to learn how they gauge full operational readiness. In the Navy, all squadrons went to an "unready" status after about a month at sea. Even though they were out there doing the mission, they weren't doing enough training missions to check all the readiness blocks.

This led me to believe that readiness numbers are unreliable. Hence, my interest.
I am curious too. I remember seeing a chart really quick during a Senate hearing with some generals in the past that showed what "in the lead" meant, but I can't find it online.

I was able to find this chart from a 2005 Pentagon Report that judged the Iraqi Units by 4 Levels. I don't know if they have refined it since then.

Quote:
Level 1 - Unit is fully capable of planning, executing, and sustaining independant counterinsurgency operations.

Level 2 - Unit is capable of planning, executing, and sustaining counterinsurgency operations with coalition support.

Level 3 - Unit is partially capable of conducting counterinsurgency operations in conjunction with coalition units.

Level 4 - Unit is forming and/or incapable of conducting counterinsurgency operations.
The Chart had seven categories; Personnel, Command & Control, Training, Sustainment/Logistics, Equipment, Leadership & Subjective Assessment.

For most of the catagories, Level 1 was >85%, Level 2 was 70% to 84%, Level 3 was 50% to 69% and Level 4 was <50%.

My guess is that the "in the lead" 70% is Level 2 and the 10% at full operational readiness is Level 1.
Reply
post #95 of 103
7/10/08 at 4:07pm
Thread Starter 
Well, the Anbar Province handover was delayed, as well as the Al-Qādisiyyah Province which was going to handed off a couple days later. They said they were delayed because of a sandstorm. Hopefully they will still be transfered this month.

Iraq has another visit from a Leader from a neighboring country, Turkey, and another Arab country has decided to appoint an Ambassador to Iraq.

Turkish leader visits Iraq; Kuwait to send envoy

Quote:
Turkey's prime minister visited Iraq on Thursday and Kuwait promised to name its first ambassador in two decades, diplomatic victories for a fragile country that seeks fuller ties and clout with once-skeptical and suspicious neighbors.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan was the first Turkish leader to visit Iraq in nearly 20 years, and his Iraqi counterpart, Nouri al-Maliki, warmly greeted him at Baghdad's airport. At a joint news conference, the two men agreed to pool their efforts to fight terrorism.
More information about Turkey Prime Minister's visit in the Associated Press article.

Quote:
Violence continues in Iraq, but Erdogan's visit reflected a security situation that has improved more rapidly than many expected, partly because of the U.S. troop surge in 2007 and new alliances between Sunni leaders and American forces.

Iraq is becoming increasingly bold in talks with Washington on an agreement that will govern the status of American troops in the country, and it now has time and confidence to reach out to other countries rather than lurch from one political and military crisis to the next.

"The Iraq of today is a constitutional Iraq that is searching for cooperation with the regional countries," al-Maliki said.

He said Iraq and Turkey had agreed their prime ministers would meet at least once a year, and he welcomed Erdogan's pledge to increase bilateral trade to $25 billion in the next 3-4 years.
And a little bit more about Kuwait from the Article.

Quote:
The Kuwait News Agency quoted the undersecretary of the Foreign Ministry, Khaled al-Jarrallah, as saying Kuwait would soon name a new ambassador to Iraq because of improved security.

Jordan and the United Arab Emirates have both named ambassadors in recent weeks, and Bahrain has said it's in the process of doing so. Kuwait is considered particularly significant, although it is small and less influential, because it has not had an ambassador to Iraq since Saddam Hussein's invasion of the country in 1990.
Jordan's King is due to visit Iraq in the near future as well. He will be the third leader of a neighboring country to do so.
Reply
post #96 of 103
7/10/08 at 5:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahtheStud View Post
More information about Turkey Prime Minister's visit in the Associated Press article.

Jordan's King is due to visit Iraq in the near future as well. He will be the third leader of a neighboring country to do so.
I think you're forgetting about the UAE... but thanks for keeping the posts alive.
Reply
post #97 of 103
7/10/08 at 6:30pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
I think you're forgetting about the UAE... but thanks for keeping the posts alive.
No Problem.

The UAE sent their Foreign Minister, which is very important, but I was referring to visits from Heads of State of countries that actually border Iraq. The term I used, "Neighboring Country", is vague though.
Reply
post #98 of 103
7/17/08 at 2:47pm
Thread Starter 
Well it looks like Al-Qādisiyyah Province (now known as Diwaniyah) that was originally planned to be handed over to Iraqi control last month has finally happened. Iraqi security control of provinces has now passed the 50% point.

US hands over control of province to Iraqis

Quote:
The mostly Shiite region was the 10th of 18 provinces to fall under Iraqi authority after U.S. and Polish forces relinquished control in a ceremony. In a statement, U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker and Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, said Iraqi security forces there had been operating "independently" for the last two months.

"We will assist as requested," they said. The statement said the Iraqi provincial and military leadership would have to create long-term security that can lead to economic development.

Qadisiyah had been the scene of fighting among Shiite factions, and U.S. and Iraqi troops launched a major operation there last year. The handover was delayed from last month.
The Iraqi government also said that they would like to take over all the provinces by the end of the year. That is an ambitious goal, but I think it will take longer than that because of their track record of delays.
Reply
post #99 of 103
7/18/08 at 9:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahtheStud View Post
That is an ambitious goal, but I think it will take longer than that because of their track record of delays.
Hey, at least a plan gives you something you can deviate from. I like what I'm seeing, here.
Reply
post #100 of 103
7/22/08 at 4:27pm
Thread Starter 
It has been talked about for the last few months and always delayed, but the Sunni Bloc has finally rejoined the Iraqi government cabinet over the weekend.

Sunni bloc rejoins Iraqi cabinet - BBC

Quote:
The main Sunni Muslim bloc in Iraq has rejoined the Shia-led government, in what correspondents called an important step for national reconciliation.

The return of six ministers from the Accordance Front to the cabinet was approved by lawmakers.

The Sunni bloc withdrew almost a year ago following a row over power-sharing.

A spokesman for the Accord Front said its return was "a real step forward for political reform" in the predominantly Shia country.

The spokesman, Salim al-Joubouri, added that the bloc's approved candidates would attend the next cabinet meeting.

Most of them are new faces nominated by the party.

Their return is especially significant ahead of provincial elections that are expected later this year, the BBC's Jim Muir in Baghdad says.
The Iraqi Parliment also passed the Election Law today for Provincial Elections in the Fall, but it sounds like it will get vetoed by President Jalal Talabani. It seems like the status of the elections in Kirkuk is throwing a wrench into the works.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Political Progress in Iraq