Friday 17th of May 2024

a model surge .....

a model surge .....

The pox-americanus department for “ever-lasting war”, the Pentagon, this week released its first quarterly report assessing el-bushit's escalation strategy, confirming that overall levels of violence in the country actually "increased throughout much of Iraq in recent months," as attacks "shifted away from Baghdad & Anbar" & into "cities & provinces that had been relatively peaceful before the Bush administration's troop buildup."

Political reconciliation has almost entirely stalled, suicide bombings "more than doubled" from January to April, sectarian deaths have increased beyond pre-escalation levels, & US troop deaths are spiking.

During a press briefing yesterday, Outhouse spokesman, Tony, “white blanket”, Snow, said the increasing chaos was a positive sign. The new levels of attacks "fit a pattern that we see throughout the region," he said, "which is that when you see things moving towards success, or when you see signs of success, that there are acts of violence."

Also yesterday, Snow downplayed the importance of the September Iraq report from top US commander in Iraq Gen. David Petraeus. Just last month, el-bushit said September would be an "important moment" in the war because "Petraeus says that's when he'll have a pretty good assessment as to what the effects of the surge has been."

Yesterday, Snow described Petraeus's report as merely a "first opportunity" to "have a little bit of a metric" to "see what happens when you have all the forces in place for the Baghdad security plan."

Citing "uneven cooperation" and little "concrete progress," the pox report concluded that "reconciliation between Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni factions" remains "a serious unfulfilled objective."

Furthermore, the report found that suicide bombings across Iraq have doubled since January, overall violence "has increased in most provinces," and "civilian casualties rose slightly, to more than 100 a day."

Echoing his mouthpiece, el-bushit attempted to dismiss the report's conclusions, saying that it is still "too early to judge the results of this new strategy" by repeating the myth that US forces "haven't even started the full surge yet."

As always, bushit is wrong - it is not "too early to judge" the results of his escalation in Iraq. As Secretary of Defense Robert Gates explained nearly six months ago at the start of the escalation plan, "we'll have pretty good early indications of their performance" before "very many American soldiers have been sent to Iraq": "Well, as I indicated, we're going to know pretty early on whether the Iraqis are meeting their military commitments, in terms of being able to go into all neighbourhoods, in terms of the Iraqis being in the lead & carrying out the leadership & the fighting, & for there not to be political interference in the military operations that are going forward," Gates said.

Furthermore, bushit's assertion that U.S. forces "haven't started" the surge yet becomes almost laughable as the Washington Post reports today that with an additional 28,500 U.S. troops "now posted in the country," a military spokesman said yesterday that the "Iraq troop surge [is] complete."

Meanwhile, the Potomac’s serial spinmeister & local accredited bushit spokeshead, “honest john” rattus - caught stepping from another non-fundraising event – lashed out at his former friend & ally, the Iraqi government ….

The Sydney Morning Herald says “honest john” believes the Iraqi Government is not pulling its weight to help end violence in the country & he believes the recent increase of US troops has produced mixed success so far.

The paper reports that in an interview with rattus yesterday, he said the Iraqi Government, led by the Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, was not doing enough to rein in the sectarian violence.

"I'm still quite unhappy with the reconciliation process inside Iraq," said rattus.

Adopting his best coaching manner, rattus said: "The Maliki Government should be doing more on that. They should be doing a lot more. It's absolutely critical; I made that clear when I saw him three months ago & [the US President George] Bush makes that clear to him every week."

Rattus said: "The surge has not reached its peak & it won't reach its peak for some weeks yet."

Echoing the hilarious logic of his cousin, “white blanket” Snow, “honest john” said the US presence in Iraq was all that was preventing it from descending into chaos & saving the rest of the Middle East from becoming "even more of a tinder box".

"If you take American influence and power out, you take away the essential stabiliser. That would be a terrible mistake."

Rattus rejected suggestions the US presence was acting as a catalyst, not only for the Iraqi violence, but for the growing civil conflict in the Palestinian territories & the destabilisation of Lebanon by pro-Syrian extremists.

He said if the US left the Middle East, constraints on both Iran & Israel could be lifted.

Along with the dead in Palestine & Lebanon, I’ve always appreciated the “constraints” that el-bushit exercises over Israeli ….

on the waffle box

Redefining the U.S. Role in Iraq

By James S. Gilmore III
Monday, June 18, 2007; Page A17

Dear Mr. President,

As you know from my public statements, I have supported your increase in troops in Iraq in the belief that a new initiative was necessary to bring the Iraq war to a successful conclusion. It has been my position that this troop increase should be given an opportunity to work. Increasingly, however, reports show that attacks on our troops, Iraqi police and civilians are not abating.
It is clear from the statements previously made by your administration that there was never any intention to become embroiled in a guerrilla war, urban or otherwise.

----------------------

Gus:  the young James S. Gilmore III is wafting waffles. Sure, "there was never any intention to become embroiled in a guerrilla war, urban or otherwise"... but starting a war in Iraq was always going to take you there, no matter your intentions. The Bushit administration had to know that the result of its excursion in Iraq would be what it got: guerrilla war, urban and otherwise, with many different sides seeking revenge on each other and all hating the US for having invaded — mess or no mess.

The young James S. Gilmore III, the US army veteran (a three-year tour as a U.S. Army counterintelligence agent in West Germany,) although being a Republican, does not appear to be a dummy. He's been Governor of Virginia and now is hopeful for the Presidential elections of 2008.

But his redifinition of the US role in Iraq is wonky to say the least:

"As a veteran of the U.S. Army I believe we cannot just abandon Iraq. I believe the only realistic alternative -- the least bad option, if you will -- is a limited deliberate drawdown of our military men and women and a redeployment of the forces remaining in the region to areas where they can more efficiently and effectively carry out a clearly defined mission.

I believe that the American military is on target when officers ask for a mission that includes maintaining -- either at bases in Iraq at the request of Iraq or in bases in Turkey, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia -- a military force powerful enough to launch special operations missions against al-Qaeda or Sunni insurgents in Iraq; train Iraqi troops to defend their own country; and guarantee the security of the Iraqi government, if so desired by Iraq.

This approach of drawing down our forces while maintaining the military presence needed to preserve democracy in the country and launch special operations missions against terrorists would save U.S. lives and tax dollars as well as prevent Iraq from becoming a base of operations for foreign jihadists and buy valuable time to train Iraqi forces."

-----------

Gus: James S. Gilmore III's solution here would create more problem that it solved and on top of that would end up being more expensive than the present Bushit messaiola. And as he admit himself: "may not come out as we hope. But we are already at risk in the Middle East."

No matter what is done by the US, it will appear to most fundamentalists, joined by the moderates whose relative have been killed in this war, that the US is meddling in things they should not or that they do not "understand"... Any military solution in Iraq is on par with the Vietnam-Korea blended solutions. A routing on one end, or a containment-occupation for the next 50 years... but unlike Korea, as things go along in Iraq it will be more a festering sore rather than a peaceful settlement, for which on a conservative average 1000 US soldiers will loose their lives per calendar year no matter what is being done or not. From what all the Yankee presidential hopefuls are saying, the US interest reign supreme above all others, thus even the dumbest of dummies can see they will be taken for a ride no matter what. By end of year 2013, on current averages 1.3 million Iraqi would have lost their lives and still no solution in sight except more dangerous of the same... the US would have 120,000 injured for life and lost 15,000 soldiers... But then more people die on the road, or by shotgun in the US alone EVERY YEAR... Right? So the US are in Iraq for a Looooonnnnng time...

Good luck...