As we talk about the end of the surge, just remember that this has been part of the plan before the surge began.  The true advantages we've gained in Iraq are mostly from putting close to 100,000 local militiamen on our payroll, various cease fires arranged by locals and the fact that ethnic purges have been largely completed.

 I'm no political adviser but what George ought to do is land an aircraft on a carrier deck, swagger and pose in his flight suit and get his picture taken under a banner that reads, Mission Accomplished. Now that would make me want to celebrate.

 I sincerely hope that the deployment times are reduced so that maybe my granddaughters husband won't be gone as long as expected.   Trouble is, his deployment is pending now.  Doesn't look like he'll be in the "after August" time frame. 

Oh, McBush isn't going to be happy about *THIS*.  He thinks Shrub's plan to cut deployment lengths would "emasculate the surge."

.

Oh, that's just when a Democrat proposed it. 

.

If the troop levels are higher after Shrub's action, the "surge" is not over.  And as Tom noted, we could've achieved the same results without increasing troop levels...that is to say, none to speak of.

 Sorry to hear it, Nancy.  The military is advocating for "1 on, 2 off" which makes a lot more sense.  Hopefully his deployment will be put off until August.

 RF, you're right.  Troops levels are supposed to be 10,000 higher after the surge than the were before.  That doesn't count the 100,000 or so contractors under arms and the additonal 100,000 or so Iraqis also newly under arms on the US payroll.

Want to end the Iraq War?  Stop paying the contractors, most especially Blackwater--which just got its contract extended. 

The United States is not occupying Alabama

The argument for maintaining a decades-long presence for U.S. troops in Iraq invariably leads conservatives to draw a comparison to post-World War II Germany and Japan. It’s a fundamentally flawed argument, but it tends to dominate the discourse.

At least Germany and Japan, though, are foreign countries.

RedState, a prominent conservative blog, has been pushing aggressively of late against the notion that John McCain wants the war in Iraq to continue for another century, and urging readers to badger news outlets that get the story wrong. Bill Scher notes today that RedState’s new round of talking points, sent via email, includes an untraditional argument.

“Clearly McCain was talking about a peace time standing presence … Someone should ask the Democrats if they think we’re still at war with the confederacy, the Germans, and the Japanese given all the standing American armies in the South, Germany, and Japan.” (emphasis added)

Scher asks the only appropriate question: “[H]aving military bases in Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina does not constitute a permanent occupation. Does RedState really believe that 140 years after the Civil War, American troops have a ‘peace time standing presence’ in the American south?”

I’d just add that a recent survey found that nearly 60% of Iraqis still believe that attacks on U.S.-led forces are justified.

I’d bet the number is much lower throughout the Southeastern United States. Call it a hunch.As long as we’re here, I suppose we might as well point out the flaw in the rest of the argument, relating to Germany and Japan, too. Joe Klein recently noted:

The problem with John McCain’s 100 years in Iraq formulation isn’t that he’s calling for 95 more years of combat — he isn’t — but that he thinks you can have a long-term basing arrangement in Iraq similar to those we have in Germany or Korea. That betrays a fairly acute lack of knowledge about both Iraq and Islam. It may well be possible to station U.S. troops in small, peripheral kingdoms like Dubai or Kuwait, but Iraq is — and has always been — volatile, tenuous, centrally-located and nearly as sensitive to the presence of infidels as Saudi Arabia. It is a terrible candidate for a long-term basing agreement.

Indeed, one prominent senator recently explained just a couple of months ago that McCain’s use of comparisons from recent generations is flawed because Iraq is a fundamentally different theater with ethnic and religious differences. The senator noted that the “nature of the society in Iraq” and the “religious aspects” of the country make withdrawal inevitable.

The senator who said this was, of course, John McCain in November, before he changed his mind about his own worldview on international affairs.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerr...

The problem with McCain's 100-years-war is not the 100 years per se, but the ten years at today's level of spending and death before the hundred years begins. 

 Does this still matter?

American deaths      4032 ( 5 unconfirmed)

Contractors   1433 ( 432 unconfirmed)

Police/ Military Iraq   10,382 ( apr 2005- march 2008)

Civilian   76,566   ( apr 2005-march 2008)

American wounded  29,314

 Thanks Tom.  Last I heard he was scheduled to go into Kuwait before the deployment to Iraq.  Cassie could tell us more since  they talk just about daily....and have a horrendous phone bill.

 Bush: More Sacrifices Will Be Demanded Of Americans "For Some Time To Come"

 It is clear that we're on the right track," the president said. That track, he said, leads to a self-sufficient and free Iraq, where those who foment violence will find themselves increasingly unwelcome, and indeed on the run from Iraqi military and security forces.

 Iraq for Sale,Blackwater video clip

http://iraqforsale.org/

Let me just get this right in my head your telling me "Al queda in Iraq" has nothing to do with Al queda?

That the prospect success in Iraq that we have now is something you agree with or not?

The problem of taking troops out because of the success is because that this is something you knew about a year ago, I thought you guys said the Surge did not work? How can you know that we were going to with drawl?

Its obvious the only reason we have Patreus recommending troops with drawl is because of the decline of violence and political progress achieved directly relative to the improved security in Iraq. That the President unlike the congress run by Reid and his buddy lady P from San Francisco, listens to the generals on the ground and want to win the war.

This is probably a cheap shot but do you know that historically an entire country's want to win a war and don't try to force pull out so a country can be over run by radicals that kill, rape, and beat people for no other reason other than they do not share the same religious views.

 Maggie Poo you realize we are at war right?

That's exactly correct.  AQI is not AQ.   Our prospect of success in Iraq has been going steadily downhill.   The political situation and military readiness is worse than last year.  And Shrub doesn't listen to anyone--if they don't parrot what he tells them to, he gets rid of them.

.

The sole reason Shrub told Petraeus to "recommend troop withdrawal" is that he had no choice.  Those troops either had to come out, or he had to extend their service again--which amounts to involuntary service.

.

Your last paragraph may or may not be a cheap shot, but it's incomprehensible.   You want to rephrase in English?

And we haven't been "at war" since May 1, 2003.  "Mission Accomplished," remember?

 AP Poll: Bush Public Approval at New Low

WASHINGTON — Public approval of President Bush has dipped to a new low in the Associated Press-Ipsos poll, driven by dissatisfaction with his handling of the economy.

A survey released Thursday showed 28 percent approve of the overall job Bush is doing. That was statistically tied with his previous low in the poll of 30 percent last month and in February.

Only 27 percent are happy with his job on the economy, which threatens to enter a recession and which many national surveys show is voters' top worry. That was worse than his previous low of 29 percent approval for handling the economy set in February, and down 4 percentage points from last month.

WASHINGTON — Public approval of President Bush has dipped to a new low in the Associated Press-Ipsos poll, driven by dissatisfaction with his handling of the economy.

A survey released Thursday showed 28 percent approve of the overall job Bush is doing. That was statistically tied with his previous low in the poll of 30 percent last month and in February.

Only 27 percent are happy with his job on the economy, which threatens to enter a recession and which many national surveys show is voters' top worry. That was worse than his previous low of 29 percent approval for handling the economy set in February, and down 4 percentage points from last month.

Congress was rated positively by 23 percent, a point above its worst mark. It has been mired in poor ratings since last summer, with many Democrats complaining it has not challenged Bush strenuously enough on Iraq and other issues and Republicans generally unhappy with its Democratic leaders.

Highlighting Bush's broad unpopularity, 60 percent of Republicans approved of his overall job, his weakest showing yet with members of his own party. Just 7 percent of Democrats and 17 percent of independents approve.

On the economy, 54 percent of Republicans approve of Bush's efforts, another low.

His approval by all adults for handling domestic matters like health care fell 7 points to 27 percent, his steepest drop this month. His ratings for dealing with Iraq and other foreign policy issues were low but stable.

Overall, 24 percent said the country is heading in the right direction, about the same gloomy assessment the public has had for months.

http://www.huffingtonpost.c...

 The financial costs of war 

With increasing frequency, I’ve noticed that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton make a point of emphasizing the extraordinary financial costs associated with the war in Iraq. The message must be resonating with voters because this morning, the president offered a detailed response to the charge.

Indeed, I’ve been listening to Bush’s speeches on Iraq since the beginning, and I think this was the most detailed take on the financial costs of the war he’s ever made.

“Some in Washington argue that the war costs too much money. There’s no doubt that the costs of this war have been high. But during other major conflicts in our history, the relative cost has been even higher.

“Think about the Cold War. During the Truman and Eisenhower administrations, our defense budget rose as high as 13 percent of our total economy. Even during the Reagan administration, when our economy expanded significantly, the defense budget still accounted for about 6 percent of GDP. Our citizens recognized that the imperative of stopping Soviet expansion justified this expense.

“Today, we face an enemy that is not only expansionist in its aims, but has actually attacked our homeland — and intends to do so again. Yet our defense budget accounts for just over 4 percent of our economy — less than our commitment at any point during the four decades of the Cold War. This is still a large amount of money, but it is modest — a modest fraction of our nation’s wealth — and it pales when compared to the cost of another terrorist attack on our people.”

As White House rhetoric goes, that may not sound like an awful pitch, but there are three key angles to this that are important, and about which the president was deceptive.

First, the majority of our defense spending is devoted to the war in Iraq. Dick Cheney’s palaver notwithstanding, Iraqis did not “actually attack our homeland.”

Second, if Bush wants to look at defense spending in a historical context, I’m delighted: “[T]oday’s defense spending is 14% above the height of the Korean War, 33% above the height of the Vietnam War, 25% above the height of the ‘Reagan Era’ buildup and is 76% above the Cold War average. In fact, since the September 11, 2001 attacks, the annual defense budget — not including the costs of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan — has gone up 34%. Including war costs, defense spending has gone up 86% since 2001.”

And third, the president referenced previous presidents and military eras without noting a key detail: before Bush, no president ever cut taxes during a war. Lincoln raised taxes to pay for the Civil War. McKinley raised taxes to finance the Spanish-American War. Wilson raised the top income tax rate to 77% to afford WWI. Taxes were raised, multiple times, to help the nation pay for WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. Even the first President Bush raised taxes after the first war with Iraq to, you guessed it, keep the deficit from spiraling out of control.

Why is this important? Because Bush isn’t just spending extraordinary sums on a disastrous war, he’s doing so in the most fiscally insane way possible — by becoming the first president to ever put a military conflict on the nation’s charge card, handing the bill to future generations.

With this in mind, Bush spoke this morning as if current defense spending was modest and inconsequential. This is sheer nonsense.

Surge, smurge.

More than 75 percent of the nation no longer cares what Bush or any of the other Republican stooges in the White House have to say about much of anything, much less the Iraq invasion and the occupation they stubbornly insist upon calling a war and perpetuating endlessly.

"So what," says Cheney during a television interview, dismissing as usual the will of the people and underscoring the mindset of the administration.

Most know that we shouldn't and can't believe anything they spin out of this shameful administration. We've just been BS'd way too much to buy any more crap.

Those who knew from getgo that it was a dark day in American history when Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, etal took office, have endured nearly eight years of their ineptitude while painfully awaiting its end.

Now finally, just a handful of months longer and it will finally be over - hopefully in time to put the Humpty Dumpty country back together again before the entire world falls victim to their lousy stewardship.

Soon, the problems they've created will fall on the shoulders of a new and hopefully wiser administration and the few diehard Republicans left will be blaming all the nation's and world's woes on Obama and the Democrats.

But even under Democrats, the withdrawal of forces from Iraq will be slow, as it must be in order to try to avert all out civil war between Iraq's many competing religious and political factions.

Then there is the moral question of abandonment after emasculating Iraq's military, destroying its infrastructure and failing to restore it.

So it's pretty clear that we will have to arm the newly freed Iraq with lots of weapons to protect itself from takeover by neighboring nations like Iran and/or possibly others.

We also will have to give them many, many more billions in aid so we can keep a base there somewhere out in the desert.

Like it or not, deals will have to made with the proverbial devil.

The question then is, which of Iraq's many religiomilitary factions do we support, supply, fund and leave in charge.

The realistic likelihood is, no matter what we do, rule of a "free" Irag will ultimately fall into the hands of dictatorial religious extremists.

With its brand new Ayatollahship, Mullahships and renamed country, the American backed future Iraq will re emerge as a threat to the region and the world with its stockpile of U.S. supplied weapons of mass destruction.

When it becomes apparent that democracy as we know it  will not prevail as Iraq's central government falls to sectarian Islamic rule, conservatives will point to the Iraq debacle as entirely the fault of the post bush era Marxist liberals they love to hate and fear so much.

"If we'da had dubya in there for another term or two ta finish up the job, he'da straightened it all out," they'll speechify at Bush's inevitable conservative canonization enshrining him as a presidential hero of Reaganesque proportions who showed the world who's boss. They'll even be calling for a Bush national holiday.

"Cheney/Bushonomics and kickass cowboy foreign policy woulda worked if it weren't for those anti 'merican commie libruls," they'll grouse over their beers.

They'll still be circulating e-mail spam to all their friends warning of Obama's kinship with Idi Amin or even Satan himself while Republican strategists try to figure out how ta save the world from the nasty commies givin' out free healthcare and food ta people who oughta be jailed and waterboarded before linin' 'em up alongside a ditch 'n shootin' 'em.

 We have lost the Iraq War..Al-Sadr aide killed in Najaf

Police have imposed a curfew in the Iraqi city of Najaf after a senior aide to Muqtada al-Sadr, an Shia leader, was shot dead near his home, Iraqi officials said.   Riyadh al-Nouri, who was the director of al-Sadr's office in Najaf and , was killed as he drove home from Friday prayers in the nearby city of Kufa.Salah al-Obeidi, a spokesman for the Sadr movement, blamed the US military for the killing.
  "The occupation forces and others who are working with them are responsible for this assassination," Obeidi said."Those who have done this want the situation in Iraq to be unstable and want the fighting between the Sadrists and Iraqi forces to continue.

"This action serves the interest of the occupier." Al-Sadr's movement said on Thursday it was "under siege" in the district and warned that its militia was ready to take up arms again, breaking a ceasefire ordered by him last August.   Who were we "surging" against? If we were pulling out all stops on a "surge" and this man was not even involved ( except to talk everyone into a truce) How will we be able to stop this unoffical leader of Iraq if we piss him off, He will slaughter us, our troops are in no condition to continue, they are worn out, low moral, disillusioned, no hope... They are sitting ducks, do not piss this man off...  

 Forget Petraeus, Bring Sadr to Washington

Look, no one is doubting Petraeus' skill as a general. Seems to be the best guy we've got. He's the man. He's Zeus. We all agree. And maybe things would be much better now if he'd been in charge from the start.

But if we need to suspend troop withdrawals because the surge strategy is working, as John McCain would have us believe, why did violence spike the instant Sadr dropped his ceasefire pledge, then relax when he told his fighters to stand down, then jump up again after that broke down, etc?

Let's face it: the amount of violence is more dependent on the Sadr ceasefire, as well as the agreement we've got with the Sunni tribes (who we're paying off), than it is on our surge-tastic troop levels.

(Insert mandatory statement about how our troops are the best in the world and how this isn't to take anything away from the job they're doing here.)

 Buchanan On McLaughlin: Fifty-Fifty Chance We Bomb Iran By Fall

BUCHANAN: But I'll tell you what's coming, John. Petraeus pointed right at the special groups supported by Iran, as the main problem now. They are firing rockets into the Green Zone, they're responsible for Basra. The president said that Iran better not make the wrong choice. We're looking at 140,000 troops there by the end of the year, and very possibly airstrikes in Iran before this fall.

Oh. Fantastic.

 The Coming War with Iran: It's About the Oil, Stupid

World civilization is based on oil. The world is running out of oil. The oil companies and governments are not telling the truth about how close we are to the end. Dick Cheney knew about peak oil back in 1999 when he spoke to the London Petroleum Institute as Halliburton CEO. He predicted it would come in 2010. After that it's just a matter of years before it runs out. Whoever controls the remaining oil determines who lives and who dies.

Sixty percent of this oil is under a triangular area of the Middle East the size of Kansas. In that speech Cheney said: "The Middle East with two thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

This small Middle East triangle encompasses the northeast of Saudi Arabia, all of Iraq and the southwestern part of Iran, along with Kuwait, Qatar and the Emirates. The US controls Iraq. It has friendly governments in the other states.

Iran is the exception. The US now surrounds Iran.

Controlling an area the size of Kansas shouldn't be a problem for the U.S. military, except that it is heavily populated and many people in the triangle don't want the Americans there and are willing to fight.

http://www.huffingtonpost.c...