|America winning the Iraq war|
|01:02:30 Aug 13th 08 - Mr. Facepalm:|
at least that's what the AP reports in a remarkable turnaround from their initial skepticism earlier in the year.
Analysis: US now winning Iraq war that seemed lost
By ROBERT BURNS and ROBERT H. REID 22 hours ago
BAGHDAD (AP) The United States is now winning the war that two years ago seemed lost.
Limited, sometimes sharp fighting and periodic terrorist bombings in Iraq are likely to continue, possibly for years. But the Iraqi government and the U.S. now are able to shift focus from mainly combat to mainly building the fragile beginnings of peace a transition that many found almost unthinkable as recently as one year ago.
Despite the occasional bursts of violence, Iraq has reached the point where the insurgents, who once controlled whole cities, no longer have the clout to threaten the viability of the central government.
That does not mean the war has ended or that U.S. troops have no role in Iraq. It means the combat phase finally is ending, years past the time when President Bush optimistically declared it had. The new phase focuses on training the Iraqi army and police, restraining the flow of illicit weaponry from Iran, supporting closer links between Baghdad and local governments, pushing the integration of former insurgents into legitimate government jobs and assisting in rebuilding the economy.
Scattered battles go on, especially against al-Qaida holdouts north of Baghdad. But organized resistance, with the steady drumbeat of bombings, kidnappings, assassinations and ambushes that once rocked the capital daily, has all but ceased.
This amounts to more than a lull in the violence. It reflects a fundamental shift in the outlook for the Sunni minority, which held power under Saddam Hussein. They launched the insurgency five years ago. They now are either sidelined or have switched sides to cooperate with the Americans in return for money and political support.
Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told The Associated Press this past week there are early indications that senior leaders of al-Qaida may be considering shifting their main focus from Iraq to the war in Afghanistan.
Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, told the AP on Thursday that the insurgency as a whole has withered to the point where it is no longer a threat to Iraq's future.
"Very clearly, the insurgency is in no position to overthrow the government or, really, even to challenge it," Crocker said. "It's actually almost in no position to try to confront it. By and large, what's left of the insurgency is just trying to hang on."
Shiite militias, notably the Mahdi Army of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, have lost their power bases in Baghdad, Basra and other major cities. An important step was the routing of Shiite extremists in the Sadr City slums of eastern Baghdad this spring now a quiet though not fully secure district.
Al-Sadr and top lieutenants are now in Iran. Still talking of a comeback, they are facing major obstacles, including a loss of support among a Shiite population weary of war and no longer as terrified of Sunni extremists as they were two years ago.
Despite the favorable signs, U.S. commanders are leery of proclaiming victory or promising that the calm will last.
The premature declaration by the Bush administration of "Mission Accomplished" in May 2003 convinced commanders that the best public relations strategy is to promise little, and couple all good news with the warning that "security is fragile" and that the improvements, while encouraging, are "not irreversible."
Iraq still faces a mountain of problems: sectarian rivalries, power struggles within the Sunni and Shiite communities, Kurdish-Arab tensions, corruption. Anyone could rekindle widespread fighting.
But the underlying dynamics in Iraqi society that blew up the U.S. military's hopes for an early exit, shortly after the fall of Baghdad in April 2003, have changed in important ways in recent months.
Systematic sectarian killings have all but ended in the capital, in large part because of tight security and a strategy of walling off neighborhoods purged of minorities in 2006.
That has helped establish a sense of normalcy in the streets of the capital. People are expressing a new confidence in their own security forces, which in turn are exhibiting a newfound assertiveness with the insurgency largely in retreat.
Statistics show violence at a four-year low. The monthly American death toll appears to be at its lowest of the war four killed in action so far this month as of Friday, compared with 66 in July a year ago. From a daily average of 160 insurgent attacks in July 2007, the average has plummeted to about two dozen a day this month. On Wednesday the nationwide total was 13.
Beyond that, there is something in the air in Iraq this summer.
In Baghdad, parks are filled every weekend with families playing and picnicking with their children. That was unthinkable only a year ago, when the first, barely visible signs of a turnaround emerged.
Now a moment has arrived for the Iraqis to try to take those positive threads and weave them into a lasting stability.
The questions facing both Americans and Iraqis are: What kinds of help will the country need from the U.S. military, and for how long? The questions will take on greater importance as the U.S. presidential election nears, with one candidate pledging a troop withdrawal and the other insisting on staying.
Iraqi authorities have grown dependent on the U.S. military after more than five years of war. While they are aiming for full sovereignty with no foreign troops on their soil, they do not want to rush. In a similar sense, the Americans fear that after losing more than 4,100 troops, the sacrifice could be squandered.
U.S. commanders say a substantial American military presence will be needed beyond 2009. But judging from the security gains that have been sustained over the first half of this year as the Pentagon withdrew five Army brigades sent as reinforcements in 2007 the remaining troops could be used as peacekeepers more than combatants.
As a measure of the transitioning U.S. role, Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond says that when he took command of American forces in the Baghdad area about seven months ago he was spending 80 percent of his time working on combat-related matters and about 20 percent on what the military calls "nonkinetic" issues, such as supporting the development of Iraqi government institutions and humanitarian aid.
Now Hammond estimates those percentage have been almost reversed. For several hours one recent day, for example, Hammond consulted on water projects with a Sunni sheik in the Radwaniyah area of southwest Baghdad, then spent time with an Iraqi physician/entrepreneur in the Dora district of southern Baghdad an area, now calm, that in early 2007 was one of the capital's most violent zones.
"We're getting close to something that looks like an end to mass violence in Iraq," says Stephen Biddle, an analyst at the Council of Foreign Relations who has advised Petraeus on war strategy. Biddle is not ready to say it's over, but he sees the U.S. mission shifting from fighting the insurgents to keeping the peace.
Although Sunni and Shiite extremists are still around, they have surrendered the initiative and have lost the support of many ordinary Iraqis. That can be traced to an altered U.S. approach to countering the insurgency a Petraeus-driven move to take more U.S. troops off their big bases and put them in Baghdad neighborhoods where they mixed with ordinary Iraqis and built a new level of trust.
Army Col. Tom James, a brigade commander who is on his third combat tour in Iraq, explains the new calm this way:
"We've put out the forest fire. Now we're dealing with pop-up fires."
It's not the end of fighting. It looks like the beginning of a perilous peace.
Maj. Gen. Ali Hadi Hussein al-Yaseri, the chief of patrol police in the capital, sees the improvements.
"Even eight months ago, Baghdad was not today's Baghdad," he says.
EDITOR'S NOTE _ Robert Burns is AP's chief military reporter, and Robert Reid is AP's chief of bureau in Baghdad. Reid has covered the war from his post in Iraq since the U.S. invasion in March 2003. Burns, based in Washington, has made 21 reporting trips to Iraq; on his latest during July, Burns spent nearly three weeks in central and northern Iraq, observing military operations and interviewing both U.S. and Iraqi officers.
So with this new information is it possible that the US will have finally ended the Iraq War in the next 6 months? This ironiclly is right on track with Obama's strategy to move all Iraqi American Soldiers to Afghanistan which has had an increase in military opposition to the Americans.
So not to sound to much like Bush in 2003 with "Mission Accomplished" is it possible that the Iraq war could be ending soon?
|02:57:13 Aug 13th 08 - Mr. Peace War And Suffering:|
im sorry but reading that report i felt that america was the only forces in iraq.
is it not tru that these countrys below are or were also there:
1) United kingdom- did you guys forget that we controled the hole of south iraq.
2) Australia- although they only sent some were in the region of 2,000 solders they were there to.
3) Poland- only sent around 140 solders but they where there for the start (this dose not include there estimated specil forces)
4) South korea
6) EL Salvador
10) Czech Republic
AND MANY MANY MORE admitadly not all of these are armys there are only somthing like 50 danish left being used as body guards for there polititions and trainning iraq forces.
the below quote has to be one of the best.
"Although Sunni and Shiite extremists are still around, they have surrendered the initiative and have lost the support of many ordinary Iraqis. That can be traced to an altered U.S. approach to countering the insurgency a Petraeus-driven move to take more U.S. troops off their big bases and put them in Baghdad neighborhoods where they mixed with ordinary Iraqis and built a new level of trust."
as i remember it it was us brittish that came up with that idear and were using it in the south of iraq (we went a step further ad wernt wearing are battle helmets we were in are berri but still carried are helmets with us)
Iraqi authorities have grown dependent on the U.S. <------- hello yh the brittish and all the OTHER countries involved are here to its not only AMERICA.
Limited, sometimes sharp fighting and periodic terrorist bombings in Iraq are likely to continue, possibly for years. But the Iraqi government and the U.S. *EDIT COLILITION FORCES!!!!) now are able to shift focus from mainly combat to mainly building the fragile beginnings of peace a transition that many found almost unthinkable as recently as one year ago.
JUST THOUGHT I WOULD PICK HOLES IN ONCE AGIN A REPORT THAT ONLY SHOWS THE AMERICANS AND NO ONE ELSE
|03:14:22 Aug 13th 08 - Ms. Kiera Red:|
Oh, goody.. Another U Laff, U Lose Contest.. :-P
|03:30:01 Aug 13th 08 - Ms. Jayme:|
|03:56:13 Aug 13th 08 - Sir Charley Statler:|
Except you failed in yours -_-
Yeah a lot of countries have been in it but a lot dropped out due to the public losing interest in the war. A lot of politicians in countries are getting absolutely bashed for helping in the war and many drew forces out to keep their jobs O_o UK and Australia I have read the most about, but I have read about other countries also...didnt have that exact list so thanks for posting that....I just hope we can look back on this in the future and believe we did more good than bad....
|05:59:31 Aug 13th 08 - Praetorian Wyzer:|
When it was "losing" it was all America's fault, but when the word "Win" comes into play, then EVERYONE was part of it. ROFLMFAO!
|06:00:15 Aug 13th 08 - Mr. Facepalm:|
Mr. Peace War And Suffering let me get this straight? You just read a thread about the Coalition forces finally beginning to win in Iraq. And that finally countless lives of both Iraqi and Coalition forces will come to an end. Thousands dead many have their lives ruined and the most you can do is get on your patriotic horse and start trying to shoot holes through a report that despite your best work was still 95% right???
Are you joking me??? Do you realize how much of an *beep*ic snob you sound like??? Not only that but the reason he said Americans and Iraqis only is because the biggest concentration troops is Americans and Iraqis and it's an American newspaper but thats not the point.
THe only problem I have with this is one thing. Never once does AP congratulate Bush and the Surge for this.
|06:00:17 Aug 13th 08 - Mr. Facepalm:|
|06:00:17 Aug 13th 08 - Mr. Facepalm:|
|06:24:34 Aug 13th 08 - Sir Chucky:|
america dosent deserve to win a war
|06:30:50 Aug 13th 08 - Mr. The Gladiator:|
Long life to the english
|07:05:53 Aug 13th 08 - Mr. Dalak The Forlorn:|
I think the main point to take from this is that life in Iraq for the civilians is finally getting better. A more stable Iraq is good for eveyone.
|07:56:22 Aug 13th 08 - Mr. Facepalm:|
People that have to go this far just to flame&nb*beep*erica ... it really shows how *beep*ic and prejudice the rest of the world is to us. People like this after something goes succesful for America immediatly find anything wrong with the victory.
Do we need to save you Europeans from another World War started by you guys before you stop hating America? Or start another Marshal Plan? It's funny because no matter what we do they'res always something us stupid Americans can do that just doesn't live up to you ingenious Europeans. /sarcasm.
|08:01:58 Aug 13th 08 - Mr. Justin:|
lol well we will always have the independence war to hold against the Eruopeans Facepalm. But ya ur right. No matter what we try to do. help other countrie, etc ppl hate us no matter wat. they call us murders cuz we fight and kill ppl who are bad. Just my opinion
|08:56:08 Aug 13th 08 - Mr. Lulz:|
What exactly are the USA supposed to win exactly?
|08:59:47 Aug 13th 08 - Mr. Justin:|
Its turning into more of a defense then more of an offense now adays. Terrorists are still attacking so we just push them back. So far we have won the first phase of the war and the terrorists know it. But now we are also after oil kinda. Atleast the stupid congress is after the oil. Most of our troops are there to help the Iraqi nation
|09:06:05 Aug 13th 08 - Mr. Facepalm:|
The USA is winning because they are able to keep terrorist attacks to a minimum. Losses at a minimum. And to keep peace as much as possible they also wish to give over the mantle of resposibility to the Iraq goverment. Now we can start on stabilizing their power.
|10:02:08 Aug 13th 08 - Mr. Taika:|
First of all name for this topic is wrong. USA is NOT America. USA is just one country on CONTINET of America. Argentina or Brasil or Chile or Guatemala or Honduras are not winning Iraq war so Continent America has nothing to do with Iraq war. Only some countries on Continent of America has things to do there and NOT even majority of them there.
What is really winning the war is people getting wartired. That is happening on every single war. Guerillas etc can not be never win if they wont get wartired. There are always as you see on Palestine, new candifates to fight forever, if majority of people dont get wartired and take support out from fighters.
|13:10:12 Aug 13th 08 - Mr. Peace War And Suffering:|
this comment is flawed anyways lol.
look at the north and look at the south i have been to both so i know from first hand experaince what it is now and what it was like in 2003.
i agree that the bulk of the colilition was america; however, the united kingdom took on actuly in 2003 the most hostile part of iraq; however about a year maybe 2 years befor america actuly had the north under control are forces were actuly able to hand over control to the local authoritys and carry on trainning the iraq solders.
the british now have a diffrent type of occupation we can now sit in the airport in basra and other amry bases we set up. and not have to worry that the local authoritys cant handel any attacks by militants if they need us then we will go and fight along side them but the iraq army now have there own commanders they are no longer under brittish and american control they are ON THERE OWN (unless they need help of cource).
now the hole "change in tactic" was actuly suggested to the americans by the brittish commanders ever since 2004 we have been walking around in berris and carying are helmets.
we did this for 2 resions
1) makes you more approchabal- seem less agressive.
2) it is actuly abit hard to see who you are, we actuly had solders that had helped people in the past being recognised by these people and being told infomation.
in 2003 we had a total of 46000 solders in iraq note: this dose not inclued spec froces.
in 2008 we now have an estimated 5000 solders still operatinal in iraq- agin not including spec ops.
now i see this as a brillant succsess there hasent been an serious attack in the south of the country fro a couple of months now, infact the most serious was when iran arrested are navy personal.
the above figurs maybe slightly inacurate, the sources of data are
the maybe other accounts of what is going on in iraq but when i was there last month all was quiet and i just trained the iraq army and wasent involved in a single aggressive engagement.
|15:32:56 Aug 13th 08 - Sir Charley Statler:|
We can just ask you for the news if you are there ._.
|15:49:43 Aug 13th 08 - Mr. Master Mind:|
The reason you probably wheren't involved was because you were inside a military base. The terrorist have resorted to road side bombs, and "hit & run" tatics. With road side bombs they can be at a distance, and not have any injures.....
|21:07:41 Aug 13th 08 - Mr. Facepalm:|
To be fair South Iraq was known for having the least concentration of fanatics. At least far less then Baghdad had. Because South Iraq was seen as a less important part of the war. Saddams regime left Southern Iraq in poverty which helped lessen the strife their while Northern Iraq was more important economclly and politicly.
Quick note: Georgia was the third largest group in the coalition effort. Until the South Ossetian conflict.
|00:39:49 Aug 14th 08 - Mr. Peace War And Suffering:|
incorrect actuly there was far more resistance in the south in 2003 as the iraq army and "fanatics" where trying to stop the landing of brittish troops.
after 4 months of intense fighting they retreated to baghdad.
the united kingdom with 46000 troops give and take a couple of thousend was able to repel an army in 4 months that has taken the Usa 5 years to control.
after they left yes the south was a much easyer ride but for 4 months untill we forced them out the south was the hard nut to crak.
p.s. im not going to carri on argueing the sheer fact that i was there and i know from first hand experianse is enouth for me and anyone that knows them self or know me.
|04:25:07 Aug 14th 08 - Mr. Shraeder:|
Pointless war. And might i point out, im happy for every american that dies on iraqi soil, cause i hate to say it, but you guys are bloody invaders, conquerers, and pillagers(oil). so put that in your pipe and smoke it, heck, maybe you'll get so high you'll find some WMD's..
i sound like a freakin' terrorist, but how would you guys feel to be occupied? so in reality americas role, invade, and squash resistance, which is what america has done in harsh realistic terms.brutal isn't it. but oh wait, your rebuilding the stuff you blew up, want a hero cookie?
Warning: Incoming american Flak
|04:41:53 Aug 14th 08 - Mr. Basch:|
Shraeder, if it weren't for america then the world would be under harsh comunism rule and you would be shot the moment you disobeyed the law and protested.
|04:51:35 Aug 14th 08 - Mr. Justin:|
WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU!!!!!!America has saved more ppl then any country. There will always be civillian casualties in every fuking war its un-avoidable. And we are not conquers and if we were all the fuking countries would be under american control but we didnt and wont do that. Saddam is a murder and he deserved to die worse then he really did. Hitler was a Conquerer killing jews which were innocent ppl. Notice we dont try to cause harm to ppl we actually try to help. And oil is stupid the only one wanting it is the blood sucking leeches we put into power. Soldiers fight for pce. And before we can have pce we must destroy all threats. Itts going to get worse before it gets betters!
|05:48:06 Aug 14th 08 - Mr. Atreides:|
I really do hope that article is right. This war needs to end. I have to admit, I dislike most politicians and find Bush to be an *beep*, but this war needed to happen. Who can argue that Saddam was a good man and deserved to stay in power? Who can argue that we should have left after taking down his regime and just left the sunnis and shiites to solve their problems with violence? Haven't we lived through enough genocides to know that taking away power from an oppressive minority usually causes reprisals from the opressed majority?
|05:50:00 Aug 14th 08 - Mr. Justin:|
Ya thats another Saddam or Hitler or Terrorist like he said
|05:56:20 Aug 14th 08 - Sir Charley Statler:|
*Sigh* ......why dont we just nuke the entire world...it would end all wars right? I am sick of this BS back and forth about people calling America all sorts of crap especially since America has done so much in the past. I am sorry to hear that people seem to ignore all the GOOD that happens and focus on the bad. If you believe like that, then you are like the American news. They post casualties, attacks, and pretty much every negative thing. Where do they stick the GOOD things? In the back of a newspaper? On the news at some random hour?&nb*beep*erica is becoming so negative on itself it is like being emo.....
|06:27:58 Aug 14th 08 - Mr. Facepalm:|
I'm not even gonna bother with Shraeders post it just disgusts me.
PWAS: To be fair, America has gotten more Guerillas in the northern sectors then British overall. Most Guerillas that weren't killed by the British headed north to American Sectors causing more trouble. But thats all I'll say on this.
|14:11:52 Aug 14th 08 - Mr. Bloodlust:|
ye peace did say dat, afta 4 months they mostly retreated north bt ye its jus the roll of the dice, you either get luky, or u dnt. An as for what shraeder sed it wuz bs. Americas done plenty of bad things but theyve dun alota good tins 2. You can always find at least one fault in a country as well as at least one good deed in a country. Tho what justin sed wuz wrong, ye americas saved alota countries but with the help of others and not always totally in the mind of saving the people as to getting the resourses. As I've already sed u can find both good an bad things in every country in the world so i wont bother going in to detail.
|15:51:31 Aug 14th 08 - Prince Waldorfius Septim III:|
I noticed that too... :-(
|17:02:21 Aug 14th 08 - Mr. Bruiant:|
... One thing i find ironic is this:
"We are doing it for peace" yet you bring conflict with you as you enter this thread to try and claim that the US alone won the war.
Far as im concerned, US, UK, Geogia, and all the rest have all played their part, and nobody can claim that they won it. because face it, without one of them, the other might not have done it.
And as for wishing troops to die, thats morally, and mentally sick, so please do us all a favour, go somewhere quiet, and pull the trigger with the barrel end in your mouth.
|07:46:10 Aug 17th 08 - Mr. Khalifa:|
will guys i am sorry to say this but the usa is not wining anything what war are you talking about there wasnt any iraq armys no wepones no tanks no *beep* iraq was under a tade aggremnt by the world no one traded with them they didnt have *beep* so i dont know about wining a war it was realy killing poor undefeded iraqs in the citys with the bombing and the Terrorists are lossing now that the arab tribes are vs them but the Fredome fighters are not lossing but i fell sorry for the moms and dads of the usa troops there sons dieing so *beep* and bush oil company gets profits.
|08:24:45 Aug 17th 08 - Ms. Kiera Red:|
WMD's found: 0
|08:29:52 Aug 17th 08 - Mr. Opportunity:|
Every 1 who is anti-US:
We are only citizens, so do not decide that we are all stupid. We have no control over what *beep*s like bush do. Most of us hate him too! We also have no control over the nuking or anything.
|13:00:29 Aug 17th 08 - Mr. Dude:|
Who cares who won the war etc! Those folks can finally start building up their lives without constant terrorism around them! That's awesome. Who cares that Saddam didn't have WMD's. Saddams sons could just rape anyone, without even a trial. That wasn't right. That they can build up their new lives, that's what is right!
|13:24:48 Aug 17th 08 - Mr. Orrises:|
GO CANADA!! xD
|13:29:37 Aug 17th 08 - Dark Lord Osiris:|
sorry but LOL at you thinking america is all hero saving people :D you have probably killed more people then saddam did, im sure the afgans thank you too. and as for America being able to conquer the world well thats even more funny and deluded.
|15:09:27 Aug 17th 08 - Mr. Bruiant:|
i never read justin's post until now >. >
Considering GBR have conquered the most land in the world (1/3), and are one of the many countries to colonize america, youll have a hard time conquering the world. Its an ambition many have tried, and take note; All have failed.
and ill prove the land ownership.
1st - British Empire - 36.6 million km²
9th - United States of America - 10 million km²
reference is here
and besides, i think people will turn against america should they try world domination.
|15:11:46 Aug 17th 08 - Dark Lord Osiris:|
world domination. i highly doubt they could conquer china or russia let alone the world. the american army isnt big enough and they are not so far advanced over the rest of the world.
|15:57:40 Aug 17th 08 - Mr. Accord:|
Americans Are World Murderers!! They do more harm than any good ... they should be nuked to get rid of them once and for all! then the world would be better off lol
|16:36:51 Aug 17th 08 - Mr. Basch:|
You've got no idea how wrong you are accord. And just tell me, what harm have they done exactly? (besides iraq and afganistan who would have been very dangerous if they had nukes which they would have eventully gotten)
|21:00:10 Aug 17th 08 - Mr. Facepalm:|
I don't know Osi we could conquer the world...if we fire the nukes fast enough.
|21:02:31 Aug 17th 08 - Praetorian Wyzer:|
If it did come to nukes, the winner would be....
|21:22:34 Aug 17th 08 - Dark Lord Osiris:|
ohh i dont know facepalm you launch all the nukes and the martians will come down seeing its safe
|22:02:11 Aug 17th 08 - Mr. Shoon:|
|22:15:33 Aug 17th 08 - Grumpy old Star:|
"Who cares who won the war etc! Those folks can finally start building up their lives without constant terrorism around them!"
|22:18:59 Aug 17th 08 - Mr. Khalifa:|
hmm there wasnt any terrorism befor the usa came :p and the war was just to clean up old usa allys the usa gave saddam wep to fight iran for 10 years bec they didnt like the shah or king of iran out of rule he was there bigest ally in the area and the afgans to fight russians they gave them weps also.
|00:53:06 Aug 18th 08 - Mr. Facepalm:|
In the Iraq war the definition of "peace" is debatable. Peace in this definition means better then before we invaded. In the short-term this costed a lot of lives. But in the long term this will help the Iraqi people, they finally have a goverment that can stand up for itslef. Their army actually exists and they don't have to worry about a brutal dictator breathing down their necks. Their economy can also finally flourish.
In the end it depends on how you look at the Iraq War, if you look at it from our perspective it was costly extremely so and no one is denying it. But if you look at the long term affect of it years down the road it might help Iraq more then hurt.
|[Top] Pages: 1 2 (next)|
My bookmarksOld forum design