Regardless of what you think, the Democrats don't have the power to stop the surge. They just don't have the votes right now. If there isn't significant progress by September, both militarily and politically, it will be the Republicans that pull the plug.

there is no purely military solution to the Iraq campaign...

Hey, this is what Gen Petraeus(sp?) also said, but the Donkey-turds left out that "purely" word...

The left has been claiming since day 1 that BusHitlerburton only had a military plan for Iraq, which of course, is bunk. If true, then what was the purpose of the CPA, the new constitution, the Iraqi parliament, the free elections? Don't let those turds push the meme that the only solution on Bush's mind (Cheney's actually) was military.

Good points, Chuck, but you must understand: the Donk-turds think all we have to do is talk to these barbarians, and they'll all come to the park with flowers in their hair, and toss the Frisbee. Their plan for Iraq and the rest of the GWOT? Elect Cindy Sheehan-Fox-Edwards as Shrieker of the House!!!

The extremists struck back yesterday with a suicide car bomb aimed at one of the Sunni tribes involved in the deal, killing three militiamen and wounding 14.

Well obviously we have angered the extremists which in turn will only create more terrorists and terrorism.

*sarcasm off*

claws - and especially true when we've got a newly emerging civil society where people, quite simply, don't entirely know how to behave in a civil manner

-- sigh...

yes - we have to teach them how to drop bombs on people ?? You're incredible. You do realize that there was civilization in Mesopotamia thousands of years before europeans were bashing each others brains in during the middle ages - and bombing each other killing millions in two world wars during the 20th century. Don't you realize what a racist imperialist view this is?

The problem is not them - its the people who would seek to steal their resources , control their political arena and go in guns blazing. Of course they have problems. Of course - but this is not the way to deal with it. And look what it has done. It has destroyed Iraq and killed at least 50 thousand if not hundreds of thousands... Real civilized Mark real civilized.

Am I the only one bothered by the fact that our forces are doing both the fighting and the negotiating this inept government was formed to conduct? If these incompetents can't broker agreements among their own countrymen, what makes you think we can begin to draw down forces in six months?

Oh, goody. Yet another Friedman Unit... just another six months, you'll see...

The problem is not them - its the people who would seek to steal their resources , control their political arena and go in guns blazing. Of course they have problems. Of course - but this is not the way to deal with it. And look what it has done. It has destroyed Iraq and killed at least 50 thousand if not hundreds of thousands...kblack

We already deposed Saddam kblack. That's who WAS stealing their resources and controling the political arena.

But you're opposed to that remember? You say we shouldn't have deposed Saddam, meaning you favor having someone steal their resources and control them politically. So which is it?

LMAO. You're such a duplicitous moron.

"Am I the only one bothered by the fact that our forces are doing both the fighting and the negotiating this inept government was formed to conduct?"

Thrower, that is my biggest concern. If the Iraqi government can't get its act together, we are wasting our time.

I do see some positives coming out of the surge. If we do pull out in the next year, the chances of genocide happening have been reduced. Why? Because if you look at the major cases of genocide over the last 70 years, in every case I know of (Rawanda, Cambodia, WWII, etc), the genocide was committed by an armed group against an unarmed civilian population. Since the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds are all armed to the teeth, no group is going to wipe out another group without losing a lot of their own forces. There is a better chance that somewhere down the line they are going to have to find a way of getting along.

ah - as always Mark allows as many insults , profanity, etc as possible if its against a liberal - there is some duplicity...

Yes - Saddam was horrible. And you have replaced him with another horrible situation. Congratulations. Sometimes - everybody is out to screw people

Look Neocon - its a simple point. Everybody understands that Saddam was a horrible dictator (Ed. Note: known lie deleted).

The point is simple - you didn't help the country by destroying the infrastructure, and (Ed. Note: known lie deleted)'s then Saddam ever did. You didn't help them by exposing huge rifts in Iraqi society without any meaningful plan to solve it besides "the surge". You didn't help Iraqi's by ignoring the vast majority of them who want us to have a time table to leave.

Look - this has been tried over and over again. Its not even a new (expletive deleted) up. Its one hundreds of years old and it will end the same. Many many dead - and a situation just as (expletive deleted) as ever. Congradulations

I'm afraid the genocide in this case would come when the Shia prevail and then take out centuries of rage on the Sunni. This whole house of cards rises and falls on the creation of a strong central government that can control the deadly impulses of its citizens. I see absolutely nothing in the way of news that suggests this is that government.

In the meantime our forces are led by a a brilliant and highly creative leader in David Patraeus. Mark can continue to post positive stories on our progress as long as he gets the manpower and material he requests, but that doesn't give backbone to the government. The real question is how long will the American people tolerate the financial and human toll of a war that most of us now consider a mistake? I put the number at well inside six months.

Thrower,
I agree that there is a good chance that our involvement may start coming to an end in the next six months (although it will take at least a year to get our troops out). What I don't agree with, is the genocide. Give me an example of genocide committed against a well armed population (which is another good reason to keep the 2nd Amendment). Yes there will be violence, but not on the scale of Cambodia and Rawanda.

Thrower and Casper, I wonder about that, too. Petraeus is obviously playing a high stakes game by arming insurgent factions which, as Michael Yoo pointed out in an article highlighted in another recent topic, are the same guys that were shooting at our guys just weeks before. As Yoo also pointed out, those guys don't like the central government, and the central goverment doesn't like them. Now, it may be that when "the crocodiles" grow up the central government will feel sufficiently threatened by them to make concessions. Then again, maybe not.

Ricorun,
This idea just hit me tonight, and I could be wrong. Can you (or anyone else), think of a case of genocide against a large, well armed group. It's not that difficult to herd unarmed civilians into gas chambers, hack them to death, or shoot them. It's a lot harder to do that to a population armed with AK-47s. That doesn't mean there wouldn't be a great deal of violence, just not on the scale some people have predicted.

Kblack,

Perhaps if you'd stop the potty mouth and also stop repeating known lies, you'd find me more flexible towards you, and defensive of you?

Ricorun,

My view is that the people of Iraq have gotten a taste of al-Qaeda and have decided that no matter how bad the Iraqi government might be, it is a massive improvement over al-Qaeda. This is why the plan seems to be to go in, stay in, and help the locals defend themselves...even though they might recently have been taking shots at our troops, the main thing is that we want them integrated into Iraqi society - and with a stake in peace and freedom.

perhaps if you stopped deleting things you didn't like to hear i would comply. Rather than just delete statements you could actually try to refute them. I don't need you to be defensive of me. Thats the difference between you and I. I look at the facts and make my opinion - you make your opinion and cherry pick the facts. Rather than just say its a "known lie" why not just refute it. If its so clear - post some actual evidence. Otherwise there really isn't a point in me continuing to argue here. I hoped this was a place for open honest discussion. Unfortunately - you have let it become over run with partisan hacks, become selective in your edits only removing that which you disagree with or find inconvenient. My recent posts have reflected your refusal to have honest open debate. You have let Keefer and other "attack dogs" get away with murder - while censoring even the most harmless of insults from me.

Let me know. Otherwise this will be my last post on B4B. You will have changed from someone I disagreed with - but respected - to nothing more than a slightly more literate version of Keefer.

I don't see this conflict following any historic road map Casper. I imagine it will become asymmetric once we leave. One scenario by which genocide could occur would begin with separation of the sects and end with the stronger party crushing the weaker.

I continue to believe that the Iraqis need a firm understanding that we are leaving at some point in the next couple of years, and our presence represents the best chance they have at a peaceful and stable future. The problem with the current situation is that they can jockey for internal power while our enemies get clean shots at people who are there to help them. That is intolerable.

Casper, regarding your genocide question, I'm quite sure you're right. Then again, I believe it's applied to the situation in Iraq for its emotional content, not its accuracy. Genocide is often confused with "ethnic cleansing". There's a relationship there to be sure. But the latter is a more inclusive term. Ethnic cleansing can be achieved by genocide, by forced diaspora, or both. Much of Iraq has already been ethnically cleansed. But most of it has been achieved by diaspora, not death (although there has been plenty of that, too). One of the reasons why sectarian attacks are down is the fact that there aren't that many mixed areas left -- primarily because 3-4 million people have left their homes. About the only significant population center that remains relatively thoroughly mixed is Kirkuk. And that area is likely to become a real litmus test for the viability of a unified Iraq.

The real danger in Iraq is not genocide, it is full blown civil war. The successes in operations in Anbar, Diyalah, and elsewhere against AQI is important, and may help to provide a key to the next layer of the onion. But unless real concessions are made by the central government, the next layer of the onion -- Sunnis against Shiites -- may prove uncontainable. Unless you find a way to turn down the heat, you can sit on the lid of a boiling pot for only so long before it boils over. And if it happens, the fear isn't really genocide, it's an escalation of the on-going sectarian slaughter which is likely to have regional implications. To the extent that it occurs, it's likely to be painful for everyone in the region. There's no way Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt are going to stand by and watch the Sunnis get overrun. Likewise, there's no way Iran is going to stand by and watch the Shiites get overrun. But if it happens, all of them will get bogged down in a war that will be difficult for any of them to win. In the mean time, though, it's likely to have a major impact on oil supplies, which will have a ripple effect worldwide. But my guess is that the most vulnerable country is... Iran.

Anyway, that's why we have a certain amount of leverage among Iraq's neighbors -- all of them. And not just them, either. But the notion that we can't talk to Iran or Syria is just nonsense, it seems to me.

Kblack,

You are free to stop commenting here any time you wish - and you are welcome back when you choose.

As for why I don't refute - because the known lies you spread have been refuted here on Blogs for Bush scores of times...we choose not to rehash them again and again and again just because you on the left won't face facts.

K-blockhead has stopped posting? HA! She's a total fraud.

Let me know. Otherwise this will be my last post on B4B. You will have changed from someone I disagreed with - but respected - to nothing more than a slightly more literate version of Keefer.

Dr. Dumbass, Mark laid out a list of KNOWN LIES, YOU STUPID ASS!!! YOU CHOSE TO IGNORE HIS LIST, AND YOU POSTED KNOWN LIES!!!

"Slightly more literate version of Keefer?" You, of all people, wouldn't know literacy if it bit you in the ass.

So, what're you gonna do, Dr. Dumbass--change your Typekey screen name, so we won't know it's you? Wussy.

I hope Dr. Dumbass does stay away; if she does, I may be nicer to most of the rest of you seminar blogger trolls. Probably not, but you never know.

Good riddance, Dr. Dumbass--now go find yourself a boyfriend...