http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/30/AR200807300294

Over the past year, many have proposed setting a deadline for withdrawal. Proponents have argued that a date certain would compel the Iraqi government to accelerate the policy of reconciliation; would speed the end of the war; and would enable the United States to concentrate its efforts on more strategically important regions, such as Afghanistan. Above all, they argued, the war was lost, and withdrawal would represent the least costly way to deal with the debacle.

These premises have been overtaken by events. Almost all objective observers agree that major progress has been made on all three fronts of the Iraq war: Al-Qaeda, the Sunni jihadist force recruited largely from outside the country, seems on the run in Iraq; the indigenous Sunni insurrection attempting to restore Sunni predominance has largely died down; and the Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad has, at least temporarily, mastered the Shiite militias that were challenging its authority. After years of disappointment, we face the need to shift gears mentally to consider emerging prospects of success.

Establishing a deadline is the surest way to undermine the hopeful prospects. It will encourage largely defeated internal groups to go underground until a world more congenial to their survival arises with the departure of American forces. Al-Qaeda will have a deadline against which to plan a full-scale resumption of operations. And it will give Iran an incentive to strengthen its supporters in the Shiite community for the period after the American withdrawal. Establishing a fixed deadline would also dissipate assets needed for the diplomatic endgame.

The inherent contradictions of the proposed withdrawal schedule compound the difficulties. Under the fixed withdrawal scheme, combat troops are to be withdrawn, but sufficient forces would remain to protect the U.S. Embassy, fight a resumption of al-Qaeda and contribute to defense against outside intervention. But such tasks require combat, not support, forces, and the foreseeable controversy about the elusive distinction will distract from the overall diplomatic goal. Nor is withdrawal from Iraq necessary to free forces for operations in Afghanistan. There is no need to risk the effort in Iraq to send two or three additional brigades to Afghanistan; those troops will become available even in the absence of a deadline. (It should be noted that I am a friend of Sen. John McCain and occasionally advise him.)

In a positive gesture, leading advocates of a fixed deadline, including Sen. Barack Obama, have recently put forward the idea that both withdrawal and the residual force will be condition-based. But if that is the case, why establish a deadline at all? It would suggest shifting the debate to the conditions for withdrawal rather than its timing.

These considerations explain Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's conduct on the occasion of Obama's visit to Iraq. Maliki is negotiating with the Bush administration about a status-of-forces agreement for the residual forces to remain in Iraq. Given popular attitudes and the imminence of provincial elections, he probably wanted to convey that the American presence was not planned as a permanent occupation. The accident of the arrival of a presidential candidate, who had already-published views on that subject, reinforced that incentive. To reject the senator's withdrawal plan in front of a large media contingent would have been to antagonize someone with whom Maliki might have to deal as president.

The American presence in Iraq should not be presented as open-ended; this would not be supported by either Iraqi or American domestic opinion. But neither should it be put forward in terms of rigid deadlines. Striking this balance is a way for our country to come together as a constructive outcome emerges. Thirty years ago, Congress cut off aid to Vietnam and Cambodia two years after American troops had been withdrawn and local forces were still desperate to resist. Domestic divisions had overcome all other considerations. We must not repeat the tragedy that followed.

The next president has a great opportunity to stabilize Iraq and lay the basis for a decisive turn in the war against jihadist radicalism and for a more peaceful Middle East. Surely he will want to assess the situation on the ground before setting a strategy for his term. He should not be limited by rigid prescriptions to vindicate maxims of the past, no matter how plausible they once seemed. Withdrawal is a means; the end is a more peaceful and hopeful world.

The writer was secretary of state from 1973 to 1977.

© 2008 Tribune Media Services Inc.


Kissinger also explains how the turn around in Iraq has happened in this article. He is still quite the statesman and a figure that represents a vast amount of knowledge.

interesting

Isnt Kissinger a wanted war criminal? I heard that somewere

Bush is real quick to take credit where credit isnt due.

Iraq wants us out and Sadr's cease fire ended the violence.
If Bush has any brains at all we'll get out while the getting's good. Even the troops, the 1/64th Armor, the last surge troops to leave say the calm wont last.
They report the Iraqi military talk on their cell phones, more concerned with text messaging than they are doing their job.
They report that when the US troops are supposed to be operating in support of them that they ended up doing the real work.
The commanders said that if the Iraqi government doesn't pick up the Sunni mercenaries pay checks that instead of providing security they will turn on the government. The US has been paying them, but the Shi'ite Gov doesn't trust them and they dont trust Maliki's government!
The Kurds are selling oil to foreign oil companies against the Iraqi Constitution and they have refused to cooperate with the central government. Last I heard they walked out of negotiations concerning election rules and the Iraqi elections planned for Oct have been put off for at least a year.

Amidst all of this is Sadr and his Militia. They are steadily training and building weapon stock piles and no one knows when Sadr will call off the cease fire. He's been patient so far even though his followers are itching to overthrow Maliki's Government!

Unemployment in Iraq is staggering, the military and the government are useless!

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/bill-hobbs/2008/07/15/new-yorker-says-luck-not-surge-why-were-winning-iraq

Well written opinion of collateral aspects of the surge and how the surge enabled the new strategy that has allowed our military to turn things around in Iraq.

This is my own assessment. Bush is a proven liar and I dont trust a word he says.

US Casualties;
June, 2007-101
July, 2007-80
Aug, 2007-84

Aug 30, 2007; Sadr calls a 6 month cease fire

US Casualties;
Sept, 2007-65
Oct, 2007-38
Nov, 2007-37
Dec, 2007-23
Jan, 2008-40
Feb, 2008-29

Mar, 2008; Maliki's troops try to arrest Sadr's followers in Basra.
Us casualties reflect a slight increase but most of the fighting, or in this case deserting, and deaths fall on Iraqi forces. Its hard to get the numbers on them, but US casualties mostly on the outskirts of Sadr City and from rocket attacks on the Green Zone jump up from 20 in Feb to,

US Casualties;
Mar, 2008-39

Maiki brokers a cease fire and agrees to stop arresting Sadr's lieutenant's. Sadr's Militia stands down and ALLOWS the Iraqi Army to enter Basra. Maliki at Bush's urging claims a victory for his incompetent military.

Sadr City, because of Maliki's actions in Basra and Sadr's Militia anger erupts in violence.

US Casualties;
April, 2008-52

May 10, 2008; Sadr's militia calls cease fire in Sadr City.
Iraqi troops ALLOWED to enter Sadr City; May 20, 2008.

Us Casualties;
May, 2008-19

The Iraqi Army encouraged by Bush claims a military victory to the world when they are ALLOWED to enter Sadr City.

Allowed being the key word. Had Sadr not turned his focus towards winning more seats in the Iraqi Parliament in an attempt to wrestle the Iraqi government away from the Bush Administration.

Peaceably without causing more Iraqi deaths, and negotiated his militia to Allow Iraqi troops to enter Sadr City unopposed. The Iraqi Army would still be squandering on the outskirts with American troops doing the majority of the fighting and taking most of the casualties..


Bush claims the Surge is responsible. I tried to show you why I think he's taking credit where credit isnt due and that US casualties in Iraq were never the result of fighting Al Qaeda but were the result of our troops involvement on one side of an Iraqi civil war!

The fact that now the elections in Iraq are put off for a year is not a good signal for an ascertainment from Violence in Iraq. If Sadr holds off now, it will be by his choosing and when the bulk of US troops are gone, he will turn is forces loose and Maliki's puppet Gov will fall!
When it does, because of Bush's failed policies we will have yet another enemy of America in charge of Iraq.
Instead of trying to force a Government of his choice on the Iraqis. He should have been making friends and helping one of the only true leaders in Iraq to rebuild the country!

Eventually Sadr, or someone else if the US assasinates him, which Bush would love to do, will take control of Iraq away from Maiki anyway. He's already began to take control, as evidenced by the Iraqis wanting us to leave within 16 months. We cant stay there forever, and Maiki is negotiating for his life!!
Right now I think Bush is just trying to leave office claiming one victory, even if it doesnt last. He will just blame it all on the next President.

Me, I will just be happy to get US soldiers out of Iraq. A war they should never have been placed into and one we cant win!!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/pride_clouds_obamas_vision.html

He's smart!

He doesn't buy it either, and has probably put the numbers together for himself like I did, and came to the same truth!

The surge isnt responsible for the reduction in violence.

Sadr's cease fire and his changing tactics to wrestle control of Iraq away from Bush's Puppet Maiki and return it to the Iraqi peoples choice of government is!

The Iraqi Puppet gov is no closer to reconciliation or a viable functioning gov now than before the surge.
Bush is out of time and Maliki has probably already negotiated to leave the country when the US does to save his own life.

Sadr wont be PM but someone loyal to him will. Bush is just happy to be able to claim any victory before leaving office. He doesn't care if that victory is a lie or not!!

Sit back and watch what happens!!!

Like I said Im just glad Americans will stop dying in Bush's illegal war.

Read it again!
2+2=4!!

The last of the surge troops. The 1/64 Armor 3rd ID, the ones Bush talked about today, were interviewed by Reporters.

Heres a little of what they said!

Still, while the 1/64 recognizes much progress during its tour, the majority of the more than dozen soldiers and officers interviewed question if their effort will have been worth it in the end. Many say their mission helped bring about only a lull in the sectarian killings and feel that neither the Iraqi government nor its forces are ready, capable, or even motivated to build on the successes of the surge.

"We have no control over what happens once we leave. No one is prepared to stay here 20 years of their lives to make sure this place stays good," says Spc. Mark Webster, a native of San Luis Obispo, Calif., stationed at the neighborhood garrison of Adel. These combat outposts (COPS) have been scattered throughout Baghdad since the start of the surge. "We have accomplished things; we kept it at a general lull," adds Specialist Webster.

The City is still in poor shape, and the Iraqi soldiers are not competent!

Adel, a once-prosperous middle-class area, is now almost all Sunni and poor. Shiites fled the sectarian violence of 2006 and their homes have been occupied by Sunnis displaced from neighboring Hurriya. That shift is just one example of the new sectarian segregation throughout Baghdad.

On a recent house-to-house search in Adel by members of the 1/64, accompanying Iraqi soldiers seemed more interested in chatting and texting on their cellphones than the mission at hand.

"It's tiring. It has been five years. Now it's called knock-and-search instead of raids. A lot of the [Iraqi] soldiers do not want to do their jobs," grumbles Staff Sgt. Jose Benavides from Miami. "If the Americans leave, the sectarian violence will flare up."

The US bought peace in some areas, and now the money is going away!!


On a recent drive with Lt. Col. Edward Chesney, the 1/64's commander, through his area of operation, he recounted how the local Iraqi police unit was rebuilt from scratch in many of the mainly Sunni neighborhoods he oversees. It's now staffed with men, some ex-insurgents, mostly on the US payroll.

He described with enthusiasm how US funds are being spent on creating municipal outposts, known as public-works substations, in many of these once no-go neighborhoods to encourage the Shiite-led Baghdad municipal authorities to pitch in.

But when it comes to broader Iraqi reconciliation, he says, that's something you can't impose. "That's something they are going to have to work through," he says. "I think foundations have been laid in our areas, but if progress does not continue there is potential for things to unravel again."


The Iraqi Gov is no closer to reconcilliation now than before the surge!

Even the Iraqi's know what is coming and what kind of leaders are needed for a sustained peace in THEIR country!!!


In one stately Adel villa, Iman Marouf says she's "guarding" the house for its absent Shiite owners. No Shiites have dared return to the neighborhood since a bombing last month targeted some who had come back.

"Fear consumes people. Hearts are still filled with fear," says Mrs. Marouf, gesturing emotionally.

Her sister, Jinan Marouf, adds: "All this calm is temporary, trust me. If we get someone like Saddam Hussein back, Iraq will be itself again. We need someone with his control."


Thu Jul 3, 2008

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080703/wl_csm/ohome

Barack Obama concedes that America's troops have contributed to improvements on the ground in Iraq, but he still stands by his vote against the surge.

Why not just admit that he was wrong?

Come on, senator, this is a lot easier than changing churches. Say: "As a proud American, I'm delighted that the surge has worked so we can move forward with my timetable for withdrawal. Look, if I'd known how successful it was going to be, I would have voted for it. At the time it didn't seem like a good bet, but prognosticators go broke in wartime."

See, that wasn't so bad.

Instead, Obama says that even knowing what he now knows, he still would have voted against the surge. Really? Even knowing that without the surge, he couldn't have safely visited Iraq?

Obama insists that, hypothetically, his own plan might have worked better than the surge: "We don't know what would have happened if I, if the plan that I put forward in January 2007, to put more pressure on the Iraqis to arrive at a political reconciliation, to begin a phased withdrawal, what would have happened had we pursued that strategy."

But we do know. Or at least we can wager with some confidence that had we withdrawn within 14 months, as Obama was proposing at the time -- before Sunni Arabs, once the insurgency's backbone, felt sufficiently secure to turn against the jihadists -- Iraq today would be in bloody chaos, al-Qaeda victorious, and the U.S. further diminished in the Arab world.

Obama voted against the surge, he said then, because he was convinced that inserting 20,000 more troops into Iraq was likely to make things worse, not better. Now trying to justify that miscall, he says he couldn't have anticipated the Sunni Awakening.

Wait. Obama could anticipate that the war in Iraq would go badly. He could anticipate that the surge wouldn't work. But he couldn't anticipate that the Sunnis would turn on al-Qaeda?

Actually, Obama had more information at his fingertips in assessing the probability of the surge's success than he did for any of his other predictions, including assurance from commanders on the ground that local tribal leaders were showing a willingness to take on al-Qaeda.

Most Americans, including many in Congress who approved the Iraq invasion, say that if they'd known then what they know now, they wouldn't have supported the war. Why is it so hard for Obama, knowing what he knows now, to say that he should have supported the surge?

To review Obama's statements on the surge since it began is to understand why: pride.

Over and over again -- even after Gen. David Petraeus reported in late 2007 that the surge was working -- Obama said: It's not working. It won't work. It's a mistake. He essentially was betting his presidential hopes on the surge's failure.

But the surge did work -- and the mistake is Obama's.

Most Americans would have little trouble forgiving Obama for not believing the surge would be effective. It was a gamble, as are all strategies in war. Even with reports on the ground that locals seemed increasingly willing to rise up, there was reason enough by 2007 to doubt the wisdom of America's commander in chief.

It is less easy to forgive the kind of wrongheaded stubbornness now on display. As recently as July 14, Obama wrote in a New York Times op-ed that "the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true." He mentioned the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, money spent in Iraq and said that the surge had failed to produce "political accommodation."

Fine. But the larger, more important point is that the surge was necessary and successful. Those facts outweigh all other considerations past and present. Moreover, a recent U.S. Embassy report stated that 15 of 18 benchmarks set by Congress for Iraq are being met in a "satisfactory" fashion.

Obama has fallen to pride in part because he has bought his own myth. By staking his future on a past of supernatural vision, he has made it difficult to admit human fault. The magic isn't working anymore. And Obama, the visionary one, can't even see what everyone else sees: He was wrong.

kparker@kparker.com
Copyright 2008, Washington Post Writers Group

link provided earlier in thread

I'll go with the professor, Kissinger, and conservatives over liberal democrats claiming to be independents.

The surge has worked? America is bankrupt and floundering if this is victory I would hate to see what defeat looks like

Gen. David Petraeus was chosen to lead by Bush because he's a yes man!

The list is long with better qualified and more experienced Gen than him that were removed, because their advice was counter to Bush's unqualified self serving goals!

Did you read my assessment Madison??

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/mullen_two_wars

Mon Jul 21, 1:09 AM ET



WASHINGTON - The Pentagon's top military officer said Sunday a specific time frame for withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq could jeopardize political and economic progress, leading to "dangerous consequences."

ADVERTISEMENT

Adm. Mike Mullen said the agreement between President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to set a "general time horizon" for bringing more troops home from the war was a sign of "healthy negotiations for a burgeoning democracy."

"I think the strategic goals of having time horizons are ones that we all seek because eventually we would like to see U.S. forces draw down and eventually all come home," the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman said. "This right now doesn't speak to either time lines or timetables, based on my understanding of where we are."

The best way to determine troops levels, he said, is to assess the conditions on the ground and to consult with American commanders — the mission Bush has given him.

"Should that mission change, and we get a new president, and should those conditions be conditions that get generated or required in order to advise a future president, I would do so accordingly," Mullen said. "Based on my time in and out of Iraq in recent months, I think the conditions-based assessments are the way to go and they're very solid. We're making progress and we can move forward accordingly based on those conditions."

Al-Maliki was quoted by a German magazine over the weekend as saying U.S. troops should leave "as soon as possible" and he called Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's suggestion of 16 months "the right timeframe for a withdrawal." Later, his chief spokesman said in a statement that the prime minister's comments were "not conveyed accurately."

Mullen, asked about the possibility of withdrawing all combat troops within two years, said, "I think the consequences could be very dangerous."

"It hard to say exactly what would happen. I'd worry about any kind of rapid movement out and creating instability where we have stability. We're engaged very much right now with the Iraqi people. The Iraqi leadership is starting to generate the kind of political progress that we need to make. The economy is starting to move in the right direction. So all those things are moving in the right direction," Mullen said.

The military buildup in Iraq that began more than 18 months ago has ended. In recent days, the last of the five additional combat brigades sent in by Bush last year has left the country.

"The day is coming when American forces will step back more and more from combat roles," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said. "The day is coming when will be doing more in the way of training and less in the way of fighting. Those goals are being achieved now. ... And so, it's not at all unusual to start to think that there is a horizon out there, in the not too distant future, in which the roles and responsibilities of the U.S. forces are going to change dramatically and those of the Iraqi forces are going to become dominant."

Mullen said if conditions keep improving, "I would look to be able to make recommendations to President Bush in the fall to continue those reductions." Asked if more troops might depart before Bush leaves office in January, Mullen said, "Certainly there are assumptions which you could make which would make that possible."

Turning attention to Afghanistan, where violence is on the rise from Taliban attacks, Mullen expressed concern about "a joining, a syndication, of various extremists and terrorist groups which provides for a much more intense threat, internal to Pakistan as well as the ability to flow — greater freedom to flow forces across that porous border."

The top U.S. commander in Iraq said in an Associated Press interview Saturday that after intense U.S. assaults, al-Qaida may be considering shifting focus to its original home base in Afghanistan. Gen. David Petraeus said there are signs that foreign fighters recruited by al-Qaida to do battle in Iraq are being diverted to the largely ungoverned areas in Pakistan from which the fighters can cross into Afghanistan.

Mullen cited "mixed progress" in Afghanistan, but added, "I would not say in any way, shape or form that we're losing in Afghanistan."

Noting U.S. participation in international talks Saturday with Iran over its nuclear program, Mullen said he was encouraged. "A few weeks ago I wouldn't have thought those were possible."

But he said he supports continued economic, financial, diplomatic and political pressure on Iran.

"I fundamentally believe that they're on a path to achieve nuclear weapons some time in the future. I think that's a very destabilizing possibility in that part of the world. I don't need — we don't need — any more instability in that part of the world," Mullen said.

Rice said she believes pressure is growing on Iran "to do the right thing." But, she added, while the U.S. is committed to a diplomatic solution, Bush is keeping all options open.

Mullen, meanwhile, discussed the fallout from a potential attack against Tehran by either the U.S. or Israel. "Right now I'm fighting two wars and I don't need a third one."

He added, "I worry about the instability in that part of the world and, in fact, the possible unintended consequences of a strike like that and, in fact, having an impact throughout the region that would be difficult to both predict exactly what it would be and then the actions that we would have to take to contain it."

Mullen appeared on "Fox News Sunday," while Rice's interview with CNN's "Late Edition" was taped Friday and aired Sunday.

___