A month ago in this post I wrote about how the Anbar Awakening was moving downstream along the west bank of the Euphrates.In Khalidiyah, the SAA had taken control of security for their own villages under the supervision of the Habbaniyah police and under the watchful eye of the Marines.
The awakening started in Ramadi and has now spread to Hit, Haditha and points west to the West bank of the Euphrates just north of Fallujah and then to the south near Amariyah/Ferris.
The tribes along the west bank are all tied into each other and some of the sub-tribes who have not joined the awakening are finding themselves in armed intra-tribal conflict.
The awakening has now spontaneously leapt the Euphrates and taken hold in an unlikely area--al Kharmah.
[...]
[E]ven if a person was to circulate to every battalion in Iraq, by they time he finished, the situation would have changed at the battalions he visited first.
This is the nature of warfare. But many members of Congress think after a five-day-junket and a few power point presentations they can make sweeping pronouncements that they understand Iraq.
Which makes them fools and possibly liars.
It's a long report, with photos.
Fools for sure!
Liars ..... some certainly are.
Which makes them fools and possibly liars.
And to think that the Bush government chose to go to war with even less information than these politicians had.
Who are the fools and possible liars?
I feel sorry for Americans. Fools to the left of them, jokers to the right, there they are stuck in the middle with who?
Which makes them fools and possibly liars.
"Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." - Mark Twain
Hey, Ted, I think you forgot to add more pieces from the author's train of thought:
"Anyone who says they can speak with definitive knowledge about all of Iraq is a fool or a liar or both."
He is talking about in the here and now, in the field, which I don't think you are grasping. This isn't about prior to the war.
The Bush government went to war with the overwhelming bi-partisan majority of votes in congress. So, what's your point? How does it relate to any war ever fought in history for that matter? Want to share with us the perfectly executed war?
A first class mind like yours shouldn't be so vague and having such a hard time with the article's context. Politicizing it is stupid.
Shall we hold our breath waiting to hear of the "awakening" in Iraq on a CBC docu-tainment video?
There is no news for utopians when there is no conflict...as conflict ceases the Utopian moves on to exploit other "victims" ...mothercorpse is part of that utopian gaggle of media still trotting the glob trying to make realities fit their utopian world view.
Media crusaders have carefully crafted a picture of the conflict that pins blame on the forces of democracy and capitalism and they will do nothing to shatter that image.
I never expect to see an accurate portrayal of what happened in Iraq until 10 years after the fact...thus is the nature of modern narrow-minded axe grinding media.
The CBC calls Al-Qaeda in Iraq freedom fighters and insurgents.
The Iraqis call them terrorists.
I never expect to see an accurate portrayal of what happened in Iraq until 10 years after the fact...thus is the nature of modern narrow-minded axe grinding media.
A good point and one that applies to all of the conflicts in history. Who at the beginning or middle of WWII or the Cold War could have possibly described the correct finale outcome?
Iraq is a process. The Iraqis have refused to write the finale chapter which is what really counts so far.
history has always been written by the winners.
Very interesting article, but only time will tell whether such positive developments will continue until they spread through Iraq, or whether this is just a temporary victory.
Prior to the US invasion of Iraq, I was completely opposed to the US going in not because of any fondness I had for Saddam, but rather my concerns about the US being involved in precisely the messy situation it now finds itself in. Now, I find myself in arguments with people who assume that because I was opposed to the US invasion in 2003 I must now be in favor of pulling US troops out immediately. My response is that now that the US is involved, the process needs to be seen through to a final victory as the consequences of leaving the situation as it is now are just too disturbing to contemplate. I'm not hopefull as the US has a long history of starting wars, but leaving when victory is not instantaneous.
the US has a long history of starting wars, but leaving when victory is not instantaneous.
Besides Vietnam what do you mean?