Anbar: Why My Liberal Self Wants to Stay in Iraq

[mykevermin]

General Affirms Anbar Analysis
But Zilmer Also Cites 'Progress'

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 13, 2006; A12

The U.S. commander in western Iraq said he agrees with the findings of a pessimistic classified report recently filed by his top intelligence officer but also insisted that "tremendous progress" is being made in that part of the country.

"I have seen that report and I do concur with that [intelligence] assessment," said Marine Maj. Gen. Richard C. Zilmer, speaking to reporters yesterday by telephone from his headquarters near Fallujah, Iraq. He said he found "frank and candid" the analysis by Col. Pete Devlin, the Marine intelligence chief in Iraq, who concluded that prospects for securing Anbar province are dim.

Although the U.S. military can achieve tactical victories daily, the general continued, the insurgency will be "problematic" in western Iraq until comparable success is achieved politically and economically.

According to several Defense Department officials who have read the report, Devlin also argued that the lack of political progress has created a political vacuum in the province. He wrote that the gap is being filled by the insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq, said one Army officer who read the assessment. Zilmer did not address that point in his comments to reporters.

"I'm really uneasy" about discussing specifics of the report, the general said, noting that it remains classified.

Until now, the U.S. military view of Iraq has tended to be more optimistic than that of much of the rest of the government, such as the CIA and the State Department. Devlin's report has been received respectfully at the Pentagon and in intelligence circles, where it has been much discussed since it was filed in mid-August.

During a hearing on Capitol Hill on Monday, senior Pentagon official Eric S. Edelman confirmed a Washington Post article about the intelligence assessment and discussed some of its findings.

White House spokesman Tony Snow treated the Devlin report gingerly yesterday when asked about it at a news briefing. "It is conceivable that other people have differing assessments," Snow said.

In his telephone news conference, Zilmer became much more upbeat than his intelligence chief, saying he saw long-term trends as positive. "I think we are winning this war," he told reporters. "We are certainly accomplishing our mission," which he defined as developing Iraq security forces.

In a statement posted on the Web site of the U.S. military in Iraq, Zilmer said that recent news reports "fail to accurately capture the entirety and complexity of the current situation." He also said that Devlin's analysis focused on the causes of the continuing insurgency in Anbar, not on the positive news there.

Zilmer said the number of Iraqi police officers has been growing steadily, and he predicted that he will have an adequate number in the province by next year.

The 30,000 U.S. and allied troops are "stifling" the enemy in the province, Zilmer told reporters. But he would not say insurgents are being defeated. The violence won't be "solved," he said, until progress is made politically, socially and economically.

Devlin suggested in his report that persistent shortages of troops in Anbar have undercut U.S. operations there. Zilmer said he believes that having more U.S. forces would "provide a temporary solution," but that in the long run, the insurgency will be put down only by social and economic advances.

Snow, the White House spokesman, said that President Bush will speak later this week with Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top U.S. commander in Iraq. "If the president gets a recommendation from the combatant commanders to send more troops to al Anbar province, they will get them," he said.

Y'know, for the record (and I'm sure that this will get a rousing roar of laughter out of the few conservatives here, but bear with me, because it's true), I've never suggested that we pull out of Iraq. Stories like this make me want to stay and finish the job, and to acknoweldge the requests of military commanders and *send more troops*. Y'know, like we should have at the request of Gen. Eric Shinseki (ret. - forcibly, you know) when the motherer started.

This dichotomous notion that one either supports the war in Iraq or one must be against the war entirely is built on a false foundation. The United States occupation is responsible for al qaeda's presence in Iraq, the United States occupation is responsible for the civil war that's ongoing, and if we left immediately, the United States military would be responsible for the increasing damage after we left. If we left, (and this is uningarguable), Iraq *would* become a training ground for terrorists. Hell, it already is.

Don't think for a second that I support the motives behind the war, or that I buy into some bullshit like "we're safer with Saddam out of power," or that I even like you and what you ing conservatives stand for. I don't, and I despise you more than those who want to pull out of Iraq. My view is that we ed up Iraq to the point that we will be less safe at home in the United States with Saddam Hussein out of power, replaced by a fragmented government, a fragmented society, and the known presence of al qaeda in Iraq. We are LESS safe with Saddam out of power if we pull out now.

What we need to do is elect people into office who won't accept "stay the course," or "we'll stand down when they stand up" as adequate military strategy. We need Democrats who will provide the troops and armor requested from day goddamned 1, we need (but won't get) Democrats who will look into overseeing the gross exploitation of tax dollars by those who profit off of war (didja hear the one about the big screen TV and the chicken wings?), and we need Democrats who will demand an exit strategy from this metaphorical nightmare of a President and his cronies. We also need Democrats who will do their damnedest to get garbage like Rumsfeld to step down.

 

[bmulligan]

"We'll stand down when they stand up," seems to be too commonsensical for you liberals to understand and prefer the term "re-deployment", or "exit strategy" as a euphamism for getting out before we take any more political heat or casualties. I do agree, however, that a "stay the course" mentality isn't the right strategy. Obviously it isn't working and more extreme measure should have been taken to keep the peace, so to speak. Unfortunatelly, if we turned Iraq into a police state, every mve we make would be turned into a political football. I can hear the headlines now:

"Americans kill Iraqis indiscriminately"
"Americans denying Iraqis human rights"
"Americans torturing Iraqi citizens"
"Americans burning innocent women and children"

Oh, wait, those are already the headlines. I guess we couldn't do much worse if we sent in anoher 150,000 troops to quell dissention.

Another fallacy in your argument, by the way, is that we are responsible for al-queda coming to Iraq. We are not. They chose to go there on their own accord and create havoc and kill people at random and stir up religious haterd by murdering innocent civillians and mosques. Let's put the blame where it belongs. And should we mention the training camp found in the northern region complete with arline fuselage? If we want to assign blame as recklessly as you like to, then we should blame Einstein for Iran's abillity to create a nuclear bomb because one obviously facilitated the other. Or, that we are responsible for al-queda coming to america and for them crashing 2 planes into the WTC, becuase, obviously, WE are the evil terrorists in the world.

Now, if we want to talk about the Kurdish groups committing terrorist acts over the Turkish border and the US threatening Turkey if they retaliate, then that's another story altogether. In that case, we actually are responsible for facilitation the behavior without allowing the Turks any recourse.

 

[elprincipe]

While I appreciate your intellectual honesty in accepting that pulling out immediately and thus allowing Iraq to crumble would be a disaster for the U.S., I can't agree with the notion that we are not safer without Saddam. Saddam attacked his neighbors, oppressed his people, attempted to assassinate a former U.S. president, paid suicide bombers, etc. In short, yes, we are WAY better off without him.

Additionally, we are not responsible for al Qaeda's presence in Iraq, even though obviously there are more al Qaeda members in Iraq now than before the war. But Saddam sheltered various al Qaeda members, including an escaped planner of the 1993 WTC bombing, and also Iraq was home to several terrorist groups. So there were terrorists there before the war, and obviously now it is the major "hot" front for fighting our biggest enemy, al Qaeda -- another strong reason not to leave at this time.