"Support the Troops"

[red states rule]

Resilient Iraqis ask what civil war?

DESPITE sectarian slaughter, ethnic cleansing and suicide bombs, an opinion poll conducted on the eve of the fourth anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq has found a striking resilience and optimism among the inhabitants.

The poll, the biggest since coalition troops entered Iraq on March 20, 2003, shows that by a majority of two to one, Iraqis prefer the current leadership to Saddam Hussein’s regime, regardless of the security crisis and a lack of public services.

The survey, published today, also reveals that contrary to the views of many western analysts, most Iraqis do not believe they are embroiled in a civil war.

Officials in Washington and London are likely to be buoyed by the poll conducted by Opinion Research Business (ORB), a respected British market research company that funded its own survey of 5,019 Iraqis over the age of 18.
The 400 interviewers who fanned out across Iraq last month found that the sense of security felt by Baghdad residents had significantly improved since polling carried out before the US announced in January that it was sending in a “surge” of more than 20,000 extra troops.

The poll highlights the impact the sectarian violence has had. Some 26% of Iraqis - 15% of Sunnis and 34% of Shi’ites - have suffered the murder of a family member. Kidnapping has also played a terrifying role: 14% have had a relative, friend or colleague abducted, rising to 33% in Baghdad.

Yet 49% of those questioned preferred life under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, to living under Saddam. Only 26% said things had been better in Saddam’s era, while 16% said the two leaders were as bad as each other and the rest did not know or refused to answer.

Not surprisingly, the divisions in Iraqi society were reflected in statistics — Sunnis were more likely to back the previous Ba’athist regime (51%) while the Shi’ites (66%) preferred the Maliki government.

Maliki, who derives a significant element of his support from Moqtada al-Sadr, the hardline Shi’ite militant, and his Mahdi army, has begun trying to overcome criticism that his government favours the Shi’ites, going out of his way to be seen with Sunni tribal leaders. He is also under pressure from the US to include more Sunnis in an expected government reshuffle.

The poll suggests a significant increase in support for Maliki. A survey conducted by ORB in September last year found that only 29% of Iraqis had a favourable opinion of the prime minister.

Another surprise was that only 27% believed they were caught up in a civil war. Again, that number divided along religious lines, with 41% of Sunnis believing Iraq was in a civil war, compared with only 15% of Shi’ites.

The survey is a rare snapshot of Iraqi opinion because of the difficulty of working in the country, with the exception of Kurdish areas which are run as an essentially autonomous province.

Most international organisations have pulled out of Iraq and diplomats are mostly holed-up in the Green Zone. The unexpected degree of optimism may signal a groundswell of hope at signs the American “surge” is starting to take effect.

This weekend comments from Baghdad residents reflected the poll’s findings. Many said they were starting to feel more secure on the streets, although horrific bombings have continued. “The Americans have checkpoints and the most important thing is they don’t ask for ID, whether you are Sunni or Shi’ite,” said one resident. “There are no more fake checkpoints so you don’t need to be scared.”

The inhabitants of a northern Baghdad district were heartened to see on the concrete blocks protecting an Iraqi army checkpoint the lettering: “Down, down with the militias, we are fighting for the sake of Iraq.”

It would have been unthinkable just a few weeks ago. Residents said they noted that armed militias were off the streets.

One question showed the sharp divide in attitudes towards the continued presence of foreign troops in Iraq. Some 53% of Iraqis nationwide agree that the security situation will improve in the weeks after a withdrawal by international forces, while only 26% think it will get worse.

“We’ve been polling in Iraq since 2005 and the finding that most surprised us was how many Iraqis expressed support for the present government,” said Johnny Heald, managing director of ORB. “Given the level of violence in Iraq, it shows an unexpected level of optimism.”

Despite the sectarian divide, 64% of Iraqis still want to see a united Iraq under a central national government.

One statistic that bodes ill for Iraq’s future is the number who have fled the country, many of them middle-class professionals. Baghdad has been hard hit by the brain drain — 35% said a family member had left the country.

Additional reporting: Ali Rifat

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1530526.e

 

[pegwinn]

I think you could potentially categorize the margin of 65,000 to 655,000 to be quite the dicrepency as far as casualties go.

It could be looked at, as a sort of denial, maybe even a twisting of the facts to suit whomever is broadcasting.

"It could be looked at" implies a perspective not based on facts. Instead it could be denial, or wishful thinking depending on how you fall over the line.

 

[Superlative]

"It could be looked at" implies a perspective not based on facts. Instead it could be denial, or wishful thinking depending on how you fall over the line.

Here just like everywhere else, perspective is everything.

 

[red states rule]

Another example of the biased reporting from Iraq - this time exposed


America's Broken-Down Media
By Ray Robison

According to Mark Thompson, writer for Time magazine, America's army is broken. While it can not be argued that the military can possibly maintain the same state of readiness in war time as it does in peace time, broken has a certain specific ring to it: incapable, demoralized and poorly trained.

Mr. Thompson begins the article, - featured on the Drudge Report - with the story of Private Matthew Zeimer. Brave PVT Zeimer died within hours of his arrival at a Forward Operating Base in Iraq. Thompson describes PVT Zeimer's training before going on to make the case that the surge cut the young Private's training short. In Mr. Thompson's recounting of PVT Zeimer's tale, he essentially was killed because he had insufficient training.

If Zeimer's combat career was brief, so was his training. He enlisted last June at age 17, three weeks after graduating from Dawson County High School in eastern Montana. After finishing nine weeks of basic training and additional preparation in infantry tactics in Oklahoma, he arrived at Fort Stewart, Ga., in early December. But Zeimer had missed the intense four-week pre-Iraq training-a taste of what troops will face in combat-that his 1st Brigade comrades got at their home post in October. Instead, Zeimer and about 140 other members of the 4,000-strong brigade got a cut-rate, 10-day course on weapon use, first aid and Iraqi culture. That's the same length as the course that teaches soldiers assigned to generals' household staffs the finer points of table service.
Mr. Thompson finds confirmation from Congressman Murtha:


The truncated training-the rush to get underprepared troops to the war zone-"is absolutely unacceptable," says Representative John Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat and opponent of the war who chairs the House Appropriations defense subcommittee. A decorated Marine veteran of Vietnam, Murtha is experiencing a sense of déjà vu. "The readiness of the Army's ground forces is as bad as it was right after Vietnam."

Sounds like a pretty solid case doesn't it? But something just didn't sit right with me. I immediately knew this wasn't the full story. So I used a journalistic research tool, possibly unavailable to Time, called Google.

You see, this article makes the brave young Matthew Zeimer sound like an infantry soldier. Infantry soldiers go to the Infantry Training Brigade for 14 weeks of intense training after completing basic training. How can it be he didn't go? Is the army so bad off infantry soldiers don't go to Advanced Infantry Training anymore?

In my research, I found this article "Soldier's last days at home memorable" at the Billings Gazette. The article tells the story of the brave Private's short military career as told by his family and friends.

Matthew had come home on leave Nov. 8, after more than five months of basic training
Five months of basic training? What this article means is that he did nine weeks of Basic Training, which every soldier does, and then went for three more months of Advanced Individual Training in which a soldier trains on their MOS (Military Occupational Skill). About.com explains the process well:


Individuals who enlist under the 13X Infantry option attend Field Artillery OSUT (One Station Unit Training), which combines Army Basic Training and Field Artillery AIT (Advanced Individual Training), all in one course.

But most civilians just think of it all as basic training. The point being, this is three more months of a 24 hour a day resident course, tough as nails training that Mr. Thompson has neglected to mention. Three months is a significant amount of training.

And it doesn't stop there. According to the Billings Gazette:


Staff Sgt. Thad Rule, with the U.S. Army Recruiting Office in Glendive, said Matt joined the Future Soldier Program at the start of his senior year of high school, shortly after he turned 17. He spent nearly 10 months learning some of the basics about the Army, preparing him for his training.

Rule said Matt "wanted to do a combat job" and couldn't wait to join the Army. To speed things up, he opted to undergo artillery support training rather than going into the infantry, a move that got him into the Army a month earlier.


Not only did PVT Zeimer do three more months of training than Thompson lets on, he spent ten months of training before he even went in the army. While this certainly does not equate to training in an active duty setting, it is a training opportunity that most soldiers don't get. In real terms, this brave young man was ahead of the training that a typical artillery junior enlisted soldier received when I was an artillery officer in the mid-90s under President Clinton.

So was this truncated training as Murtha called it effective? Was he really ready? The Gazette goes on:


Matt was 5 feet, 7 inches tall and weighed maybe 175 pounds when he went in for basic training.

"The kid came back and he was fit," Rule said. "I'd say his confidence was the big thing."

Tessa Hopper, Matt's former girlfriend, noted the same thing when she spoke Sunday evening during a wake service for Matt.

"He was proud as a peacock when he came home for the holidays," she said.
Damon noticed it, too. Matt had always liked to exercise, he said, but he got in excellent shape during basic training.

"He loved the way he looked when he came home from basic," Damon said.


So according to PVT Zeimer's loved ones, he was fit, proud, motivated and anything but broken-down. He was a soldier damn it! Not a victim. Not a political talking point.

Mr. Thompson also tells us:


The Army and the White House insist the abbreviated training was adequate. "They can get desert training elsewhere," spokesman Tony Snow said Feb. 28, "like in Iraq." But outside military experts and Zeimer's mother disagree. The Army's rush to carry out President George W. Bush's order to send thousands of additional troops more quickly to Iraq is forcing two of the five new brigades bound for the war to skip standard training at Fort Irwin, Calif. These soldiers aren't getting the benefit of participating in war games on the wide Mojave Desert, where gun-jamming sand and faux insurgents closely resemble conditions in Iraq.

Thompson tells us that the army callously failed to train the young private in desert warfare (which is not a deployment requirement for US Army soldiers anyway). His writing certainly makes Tony Snow appear flippant about the issue. But we learn this from the Billings Gazette:


After leaving the U.S. on Jan. 13, Damon said, Matt went to Kuwait for additional training before shipping out to Iraq on Jan. 25.

Yet more training? Yes, and it was in the desert just like Tony Snow indicated. But what about that training in Fort Irwin at the National Training Center (NTC) that Mr. Thompson referred to in his article? Would that have helped the brave Private? You bet. More training is always better. But at some point the training stops when the fighting starts (actually, it continues even in combat, but not at a training facility). And a better understanding of what the NTC training mission is makes this clear:


NTC MISSION

Provide tough, realistic joint and combined arms training

Focus at the battalion task force and brigade levels

Assist commanders in developing trained, competent leaders and soldiers

Identify unit training deficiencies, provide feedback to improve the force and prepare for success on the future joint battlefield

Provide a venue for transformation

Take care of soldiers, civilians, and family members


Joint, combined, battalion, brigade, these are all keywords which mean that the NTC is first and foremost a unit trainer. The individual soldier goes to NTC more by providence than by design. Nobody keeps track of your NTC rotations. It is not a training requirement for individual readiness. An individual unit may not be scheduled for rotation to the NTC for as long as two years. It is one facility and there are many brigades. The NTC is not and has never been a requirement for individual deployment.

What happens at NTC? A unit rotation lasts four weeks. The unit typically spends the first week in preparation and the last week in recovery. That means that the unit spends two weeks "in the box". While the training is valuable, and is the best two weeks of training a unit can get in the army, it is only two weeks after all.

While it certainly increases the skills of the individual soldier, you don't have to send a soldier to brigade level training to learn how to clean the sand out of your weapon as Mr. Thompson laments. And dealing with civilians on the battlefield can be taught anywhere.

Mr. Thompson's article also states:


Under cover of darkness, Sunni insurgents were attacking his new post from nearby buildings. Amid the smoke, noise and confusion, a blast suddenly ripped through the 3-ft. concrete wall shielding Zeimer and a fellow soldier, killing them both.

What Mr. Thompson doesn't tell the reader is than the soldier that was killed with PVT Zeimer was "Spc. Alan E. McPeek, a 20-year-old who had been in Iraq for 14 months" according to the Gazette. Of course, it's difficult to make a soldier appear to have died due to lack of training when the soldier who died next to him was a 14 month combat veteran, isn't it?

As disgusted as I am by the absolutely misleading nature of Mr. Thompson's article and how it affects the general public's perceptions, I am far more sickened by these vultures not explaining to the families of men like PVT Zeimer that their son was a hero, not a victim to be used in creating a political talking point for shoddy journalists and opportunist politicians. Army officials should explain what the standards of deployment training are to the families of our brave soldiers before rotten tomatoes like these convince them that heroes like Matthew died for lack of training.

God bless you Private Zeimer.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...n_media_1.html

 

[red states rule]

Here just like everywhere else, perspective is everything.

The War You're Not Reading About

By John McCain
Sunday, April 8, 2007; Page B07

I just returned from my fifth visit to Iraq since 2003 -- and my first since Gen. David Petraeus's new strategy has started taking effect. For the first time, our delegation was able to drive, not use helicopters, from the airport to downtown Baghdad. For the first time, we met with Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar province who are working with American and Iraqi forces to combat al-Qaeda. For the first time, we visited Iraqi and American forces deployed in a joint security station in Baghdad -- an integral part of the new strategy. We held a news conference to discuss what we saw: positive signs, underreported in the United States, that are reason for cautious optimism.

I observed that our delegation "stopped at a local market, where we spent well over an hour, shopping and talking with the local people, getting their views and ideas about different issues of the day." Markets in Baghdad have faced devastating terrorist attacks. A car bombing at Shorja in February, for example, killed 137 people. Today the market still faces occasional sniper attacks, but it is safer than it used to be. One innovation of the new strategy is closing markets to vehicles, thereby precluding car bombs that kill so many and garner so much media attention. Petraeus understandably wanted us to see this development.

I went to Iraq to gain a firsthand view of the progress in this difficult war, not to celebrate any victories. No one has been more critical of sunny progress reports that defied realities in Iraq. In 2003, after my first visit, I argued for more troops to provide the security necessary for political development. I disagreed with statements characterizing the insurgency as a "few dead-enders" or being in its "last throes." I repeatedly criticized the previous search-and-destroy strategy and argued for a counterinsurgency approach: separating the reconcilable population from the irreconcilable and creating enough security to facilitate the political and economic solutions that are the only way to defeat insurgents. This is exactly the course that Petraeus and the brave men and women of the American military are pursuing.

The new political-military strategy is beginning to show results. But most Americans are not aware because much of the media are not reporting it or devote far more attention to car bombs and mortar attacks that reveal little about the strategic direction of the war. I am not saying that bad news should not be reported or that horrific terrorist attacks are not newsworthy. But news coverage should also include evidence of progress. Whether Americans choose to support or oppose our efforts in Iraq, I hope they could make their decision based on as complete a picture of the situation in Iraq as is possible to report. A few examples:


· Sunni sheikhs in Anbar are now fighting al-Qaeda. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki visited Anbar's capital, Ramadi, to meet with Sunni tribal leaders. The newly proposed de-Baathification legislation grew out of that meeting. Police recruitment in Ramadi has increased dramatically over the past four months.


· More than 50 joint U.S.-Iraqi stations have been established in Baghdad. Regular patrols establish connections with the surrounding neighborhood, resulting in a significant increase in security and actionable intelligence.


· Extremist Shiite militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr is in hiding, his followers are not contesting American forces, sectarian violence has dropped in Baghdad and we are working with the Shiite mayor of Sadr City.


· Iraqi army and police forces are increasingly fighting on their own and with American forces, and their size and capability are growing. Iraqi army and police casualties have increased because they are fighting more.

Despite these welcome developments, we should have no illusions. This progress is not determinative. It is simply encouraging. We have a long, tough road ahead in Iraq. But for the first time since 2003, we have the right strategy. In Petraeus, we have a military professional who literally wrote the book on fighting this kind of war. And we will have the right mix and number of forces.

There is no guarantee that we will succeed, but we must try. As every sensible observer has concluded, the consequences of failure in Iraq are so grave and so threatening for the region, and to the security of the United States, that to refuse to give Petraeus's plan a chance to succeed would constitute a tragic failure of American resolve. I hope those who cite the Iraq Study Group's conclusions note that James Baker wrote on this page last week that we must have bipartisan support for giving the new strategy time to succeed. This is not a moment for partisan gamesmanship or for one-sided reporting. The stakes are just too high.

The writer is a Republican senator from Arizona and a candidate for president.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/06/AR2007040601781.html

 

[red states rule]

Here just like everywhere else, perspective is everything.

I do have to give credit where credit is due

Cindy Crackpot Sheehan gets one right - Dems have betrayed the voters.


Sheehan, whose soldier son Casey was killed in Iraq, planned to lead dozens of protesters to a security checkpoint near Bush's Texas ranch and read out names of US dead in Iraq using a bullhorn.
"Our message is: Today is Good Friday, when Jesus Christ was killed by the Roman Empire. He rose again on Sunday, came back to life. But our loved ones won't be coming home" from Iraq, she told reporters.
The protesters will tell Bush "to end this madness for our families," said Sheehan, who took a tough line against Democrats who harnessed anger at the Iraq war to recapture the US Congress in November.
"They got there and they betrayed the grass roots that put them back there," she said. "We can't depend on the Democrats."


D U P E D

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070406213651.amoh9jep&show_article=1

 

[Superlative]

I do have to give credit where credit is due

Cindy Crackpot Sheehan gets one right -
"They got there and they betrayed the grass roots that put them back there," she said. "We can't depend on the Democrats."


D U P E D

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070406213651.amoh9jep&show_article=1

Maybe Cindy doesnt understand, its alot more difficult to clean up a mess this big, compared to making it.

 

[red states rule]

Maybe Cindy doesnt understand, its alot more difficult to clean up a mess this big, compared to making it.

So now she is to stupid to understand the complexity of the issue?

That is usually what libs say about anyone who disagrees with them

 

[Rosotar]

So now she is to stupid to understand the complexity of the issue?

That is usually what libs say about anyone who disagrees with them

Maybe if George Bush had listened to people like Colin Powell he would have understood the "complexity" of the issue and not invaded in the first place.

 

[red states rule]

Maybe if George Bush had listened to people like Colin Powell he would have understood the "complexity" of the issue and not invaded in the first place.

Libs never do want to sand up to evil, but would rather try to reason with them

 

[Rosotar]

Libs never do want to sand up to evil, but would rather try to reason with them

Just a minute ago it was a "very complex issue."

Now you say it's as ridiculously simple as "good versus evil."

Which would you prefer RSR?

 

[red states rule]

Just a minute ago it was a "very complex issue."

Now you say it's as ridiculously simple as "good versus evil."

Which would you prefer RSR?

For those of us who understand you cannot reason with people whose only goal is to kill you - it is easy

For libs who would rather treat terrorism as a crime and not an act of war - it is hard for them understand it is not a complex issue

 

[Superlative]

Maybe if George Bush had listened to people like Colin Powell he would have understood the "complexity" of the issue and not invaded in the first place.

Its hard to listen to the "Voice of Reason" when you have Republican Hawks like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, telling you "we have no choice, theres no other way around it, this is our only option, this is what me must do"

"Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki testifies before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he believes at least "several hundred thousand troops" are necessary to remove Hussein and secure Iraq."

He was quickly discredited and pretty much ignored.

"Immediately after taking office, Rumsfeld begins to reassert civilian control over the Pentagon, a department that had been run by the uniform military in recent years. "It was a pretty tough process," says Thomas Ricks, "A lot of friction in those first months, with Rumsfeld saying, 'No, I don't think you heard me clearly. I'm the boss. I want to do it this way'." He undertakes an exhaustive review of all of the military's contingency plans and personally interviews candidates for promotion at the highest levels. Says Ricks, "[There was] a lot of resentment of that in the military."

How was GW supposed to listen when all he was hearing from his "Top Advisors" was, (insert raspy demonic voice) "We must invade"

Watch The PBS show Frontline, "Rumsfelds War" it lays it all out quite nicely.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...pentagon/view/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../cronfeld.html

 

[red states rule]

It seems libs are more interested in making sure the US loses this war then winning it

 

[Superlative]

For those of us who understand you cannot reason with people whose only goal is to kill you - it is easy

For libs who would rather treat terrorism as a crime and not an act of war - it is hard for them understand it is not a complex issue

It seems to have worked out for the "Libs" in the past few yers in Northern Ireland,
by simply agreeing to address the issues.
Since the signing of the Belfast Agreement in 1998, many of the major paramilitary or "Terrorist" campaigns have either been on ceasefire or have declared their war to be over.

Why couldnt we work towards that?

 

[red states rule]

It seems to have worked out for the "Libs" in the past few yers in Northern Ireland,
by simply agreeing to address the issues.
Since the signing of the Belfast Agreement in 1998, many of the major paramilitary or "Terrorist" campaigns have either been on ceasefire or have declared their war to be over.

Why couldnt we work towards that?

Comparing the IRA with al Qaeda is a stretch

 

[Superlative]

It seems libs are more interested in making sure the US loses this war then winning it

How can you win or lose an occupation?

The US is over there, and Iraqi people are fighting back the only way they know how, we may have knocked down the hornets nest, But now there are hornets everywhere, and they are pissed.

And you can be a good little Republican and say its either "win or lose", you can continue to repeatedly Spew your White House Talking Point Propaganda, whenever someone makes a point.

"if we Cut and Run the Terrorists Win"

"You obviously want the Terrorists to win if you're against the war"

"Democrats are the best allies the terrorists have. Dems are doing exactly what the terrorists want them to"

"By exposing Government lies you embolden the terrorists"

"Do you want us to lose the war on terrorism"

"We must defeat them there, so we dont have to fight them here"

It would appear that with your logic, the US will actually have to KILL EVERYONE just to make sure that all the people America have pissed off cant come back and commit Terrorist acts.

 

[red states rule]

How can you win or lose an occupation?

The US is over there, and Iraqi people are fighting back the only way they know how, we may have knocked down the hornets nest, But now there are hornets everywhere, and they are pissed.

And you can be a good little Republican and say its either "win or lose", you can continue to repeatedly Spew your White House Talking Point Propaganda, whenever someone makes a point.

"if we Cut and Run the Terrorists Win"

"You obviously want the Terrorists to win if you're against the war"

"By exposing Government lies you embolden the terrorists"

"Do you want us to lose the war on terrorism"

"We must defeat them there, so we dont have to fight them here"

It would appear that with your logic, the US will actually have to KILL EVERYONE just to make sure that all the people America have pissed off cant come back and commit Terrorist acts.

Democrats are the best allies the terrorists have. Dems are doing exactly what the terrorists want them to

 

[Superlative]

Democrats are the best allies the terrorists have. Dems are doing exactly what the terrorists want them to

"Democrats are the best allies the terrorists have. Dems are doing exactly what the terrorists want them to"

Did i leave that one out?

Sorry, ill insert it.

 

[red states rule]

"Democrats are the best allies the terrorists have. Dems are doing exactly what the terrorists want them to"

Did i leave that one out?

Sorry, ill insert it.

The terrorists want Dems to push their "Surrender At All Costs" bill - why not? The Dems will hand Iraq over to them on a silver platter