ubi.com    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  1C:Maddox Games  Hop To Forums  IL2 Off Topic    AP: "US now winning Iraq war that seemed lost"
Page 1 2 3 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
  Login/Join 
Posted
First off, let me start by saying: BOOYAH! AMERICA, F**K YAH!

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jzxqARN0Huv38n5pgDfdBRwuoiZgD925JFD00

quote:

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 changes.

"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.
 
Posts: 362 | Registered: Thu May 22 2008Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Picture of Bremspropeller
Posted Hide Post
Roll Eyes

It was't "lost" before and it's not "won" yet either.


 
Posts: 3329 | Registered: Fri August 30 2002Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post



Picture of leitmotiv
Posted Hide Post
Whether you agree with GW about going into Iraq or not, you cannot fault him for will to win---even to the point of sacking his Sec of Defense and outraging the American Left by reinforcing the mission with the "Surge." If he had four more years, I'd wager we would win---as would the Iraqis. If Obama wins, it likely will be 1973-75 all over again with Democrats ditching our ally, and sending it to ruin---with horrible consequences.
 
Posts: 9979 | Registered: Fri May 21 2004Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Picture of Bremspropeller
Posted Hide Post
The term "winning" is quite off, as GW has already declared the war being "over".

The goatfeckers, however, didn't quite agree and kept on crashing GW's party.
That's been 5yrs ago.

We can only HOPE the trend right now continues and the people in Iraq can FINALLY live in peace in a coupke of months/ years.


 
Posts: 3329 | Registered: Fri August 30 2002Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Picture of BSS_CUDA
Posted Hide Post
people seem to forget that when Germany was defeated in May 45 and the Hostilities had "officially" ended. that it took several more years for the Nazi loyalist violence to stop.

Winning a war is more than just defeating another countries Military. its about changing the mindset afterwards.


*****************************
BSS_CUDA
Co-Founder of my family
U.S.Navy retired 1978-1982
U.S.S. Belleau Wood LHA-3



BSS214.com
That was some of the best flying I've seen yet! right up to the part where you got killed.
you NEVER NEVER leave your wingman.

Jester : TopGun
 
Posts: 1161 | Registered: Fri January 02 2004Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Picture of Bremspropeller
Posted Hide Post
Nazi loyalist violence. Roll Eyes

People being busy searching and finding their relatives, re-building their houses and being driven away from their houses and homes hardly have any time sympathising with a past regime that caused all their misery.

And those few that couldn't accept reality certainly didn't blow up market-places and police-stations.

There is a little difference between a country that resets from the start (Germany past '45) and a country that's being misused for somebody else's ideology battle (Iraq).


 
Posts: 3329 | Registered: Fri August 30 2002Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
IL2 Moderator
Picture of steiner562
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
people seem to forget that when Germany was defeated in May 45 and the Hostilities had "officially" ended. that it took several more years for the Nazi loyalist violence to stop.

Winning a war is more than just defeating another countries Military. its about changing the mindset afterwards.

You can take this REPLY as a personal warning cut the bull**** out, I thought we were past the ignorant stage in this off topic forum Ive been proven wrong last few days.





 
Posts: 1160 | Registered: Wed March 10 2004Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Posted Hide Post
quote:
BAGHDAD (AP) — The United States is now winning the war that two years ago seemed lost.


They should have added the words "by us" to the end of that quote.

The American media declared defeat long ago, bet it hurt for them to finally admit defeat.
 
Posts: 318 | Registered: Sun December 26 2004Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Picture of Bewolf
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
people seem to forget that when Germany was defeated in May 45 and the Hostilities had "officially" ended. that it took several more years for the Nazi loyalist violence to stop.

Winning a war is more than just defeating another countries Military. its about changing the mindset afterwards.


What the heck are you talking about? What Nazi loyalist violence years after the deafeat? All that comes to mind were a few isolated "werwolf" actions which had no backing from the population whatsoever, were very limited in number and stopped soon.

Those "Germany/Japan" comparisons to the current Afghanistan/Iraq wars are bare nonsense. The situations are so completly different the mere attempt to compare them speaks volumens of culturual and historic ignorance.

Look, go to a library and get yourself a history book. Seriously, it helps.


Bewolf

Never discuss with stupid people.
They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
 
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Sun December 02 2001Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Picture of huggy87
Posted Hide Post
Yes, pray tell. I have never in my life heard of post war nazi loyalist violence. If anything I have heard that the Germans were largely welcoming of the Western Allies.
 
Posts: 1460 | Registered: Sat June 14 2003Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Posted Hide Post
Hey guys, Lets not jump on Cuda too hard, I think I know where he's comeing from.

A couple of years ago there was a Doc on the Werwolf stuff on TV, it focused pretty heavy on it and left you with a fealing that it was a major problem for many years.

Not being a historian, it left me with the feeling that I didn't know everything and that it was some kind of new evidence.
 
Posts: 1591 | Registered: Tue February 27 2007Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by buzzsaw1939:
Hey guys, Lets not jump on Cuda too hard,.......


Agreed.

Given Cuda's track record I don't think he's trolling or anything. Maybe he's just misinformed; no reason to hang him.

I have inside information that he's human.
 
Posts: 7845 | Registered: Sat May 07 2005Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Picture of I_KG100_Prien
Posted Hide Post
All Cuda was trying to point out, was that this mind set that "peace" will happen in Iraq if the U.S were to leave is pure fantasy. At least one thing we are doing over there is trying to keep it to a minimum. Some of those guys would love nothing more than for us to leave so they could have a field day without the watch dogs.

There wasn't peace there before we showed up if you cast your mind back far enough. Saddam was not Mr. Nice Guy, his sons weren't nice, his trusted staff wasn't nice. It was not the land of milk and honey, nor was it the land of peace.

Iran/Iraq war? Kuwait invasion? Religious killings?
 
Posts: 849 | Registered: Tue April 11 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Picture of DuxCorvan
Posted Hide Post
Oooh, why can we all just get along? Heart

It's only a misunderstanding, sure we can solve it with songs, kisses and hugs.

Roll Eyes



 
Posts: 5015 | Registered: Tue August 05 2003Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Picture of Bewolf
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by I_KG100_Prien:
All Cuda was trying to point out, was that this mind set that "peace" will happen in Iraq if the U.S were to leave is pure fantasy. At least one thing we are doing over there is trying to keep it to a minimum. Some of those guys would love nothing more than for us to leave so they could have a field day without the watch dogs.

There wasn't peace there before we showed up if you cast your mind back far enough. Saddam was not Mr. Nice Guy, his sons weren't nice, his trusted staff wasn't nice. It was not the land of milk and honey, nor was it the land of peace.

Iran/Iraq war? Kuwait invasion? Religious killings?



Not agreed to the peace before. Saddam was pretty much under control. He had a big mouth to not lose face to Iran and neighbouring powers, but he didn't have anything in his hands. That was commonly known and repeated again and again in the UN debates. There is a reason there was never a resolution agreeing to a war and why nobody took the US serious there, the british prime minister an exception out of a false grasp of history.

Agreed to the killing not stopping if the US pulls out, it rather will come up again. That is why I really have mixed feelings about the US leaving the area. The US was warned, the sh*t hit the fan, we had our fair share of Schadenfreude...but whatever the past, now Iraq has to be rebuilt, and the success of that will be a measurement for the western world as a whole. That is one reason why I actually think Germany and other european nations should helkp out there, too, even if it is only civilian stuff. It is in our very own interest.


Bewolf

Never discuss with stupid people.
They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
 
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Sun December 02 2001Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
 Previous Topic | Next Topic powered by eve community Page 1 2 3  
 

ubi.com    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  1C:Maddox Games  Hop To Forums  IL2 Off Topic    AP: "US now winning Iraq war that seemed lost"

Terms of Use