This is a key time not only in US history, but world history. The US is finally beginning its draw down of military forces in the country after the surge and soon enough we will see whether the surge did in fact work in helping to stabilize the country. Perhaps i'm wrong here, but it seems like the surge has been effective so far. I only have limited knowledge from what I read, but troops deaths are down, civilian deaths are down, and Al Qaeda is steadily losing its remaining forces in the region and we aren't even the ones attacking them.

Over the weekend for example, Sunni forces carried out an attack on Al Qaeda fighters and asked the US military to stay out of the fight.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/0135731D-D628-4A85-887B-32ABAB700DBF.htm

Furthermore, looking back at this war, the US has achieved many objectives which were what caused it to invade and stay in the country to begin with such as:

1) Saddam Hussein, a potential threat to the world, was eliminated.

2) Iraq does not have WMD's

and

3) Al Qaeda is being removed from the country.

Now I know that Iran, a bitter rival to the US, has much influence in the region, but one has to wonder how long that relationship will last considering the Iraqi's do not want to be a puppet of a foreign country.

So with that said, it's time to start being optimistic about Iraq. All that is left which needs to be accomplished in order for the US to save its world image and history to not look back on Iraq as an utter failure is:

1) The elimination of Al Qaeda as any force in the country

and

2) Iraq to be stabilized into a country which does not go into civil war.

Objective 1 I think can be achieved, but objective 2 we will have to just wait and see. This is a very trying time for the US and Iraqi people, but I am optimistic that Iraq will not be looked at as an utter failure for US forces. What do you all think?

Afghanistan on the other hand....what a mess that country is.

Quit saying "you", because it seems like YOU are typecasting me into some ignorant category.

First of all, war with Iran I don't think should happen unless Iran really does try to get nuclear weapons and then I don't think it should be an occupation, it should be a campaign designed only to disable the program.

Secondly, correct me if i'm wrong, but it almost seems like you think I want US troops occupying Iraq indefinitely. That is just simply not true. What I want is Iraq to become a stabilized country so that the military can get the hell out of there and focus on the real problem in the war on terror, Afghanistan.

Third, I agree with you on your point that it would be time for us to start leaving if Al Qaeda is indeed defeated, but the one thing Al Qaeda has shown is a resilience to fight and until we start seeing more examples of Iraqi's taking up arms without US help, I think the US MUST stay in the region.

For example, in Afghanistan, we left many towns to fend for themselves and the Taliban just came back and instilled their form of law over the town and the towns people could not fight back because they did not have that kind of strength. This could very well happen to many Iraqi towns if the US suddenly abandoned them before they could fend for themselves.

So I said it before and i'll say it again Peis...

These should be the terms for US withdrawal from Iraq...

1) Al Qaeda unable to establish roots in the country

and

2) The country stabilized enough so that Iraq's leaders can come up with compromises to help bring lasting peace throughout the country.

What do you think Peis?

and who is to determine that? IAEA says no evidence, Putin says the programme is peaceful. American demand is to stop ANY enrichment unconditionally. U're going to make your own arbitrary judgment and llaunch your won arbitrary actions. So please, "unless Iran really does"....


if u're looking to total disappearance of Qaeda in Iraq, won't happen. If a terror attack every month or two is enough to say Qaeda is NOT defeated and therefore u must stay, then u'll stay forever. They will always have the ability to throw at least an average attack at least periodically. They have this ability in KSA, in Jordan, in Egypt, and will be able to blow smth up in Iraq for a very long time.


u want locals to do your job for you. Alas, they might have a different view of things. What is "terrorists" for you might be "our local dudes, bros and cousins" for them. There will be no self-sustainable pro-American government in Afgh and Iraq, so u must stay indefinitely.


but that's not what u want and not why u went there. The country was stabilized and of little danger already. U want a controllable government there. If the govenment will be pro-Iranian, u care little whether it is stable and democratic. Without American troops on the ground there WILL be a government friendly to Iran and Syria. An anti-ISraeli government supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, and u'll have the Axis Tehran-Baghdad-Damascus. A democratically elected pro-Iranian government in Iraq is the reality that u 're trying to prevent. Even if Qaeda convert to Buddhism and retreat to monasteries in Tibet, a democratic stable peaceful flourishing pro-Iranian Iraq is unacceptable to you. You're fighting for geostrategic supremacy, and that is all that has ever been relevant about this war.

by "u" I mean US. You began talking in the "we" mode about the US ("in Afghanistan, we left many towns.."). So I accepted that you identify with the US and speak on behalf of it. And I said what YOU want in Iraq. Now you want an apology because I speak in your own terms. Make up your mind whether you speak in the "I, Zenter" mode or in the "We, the US" mode.

Now I am curious... what is victory in Iraq?

Thank you for answering. It's been a long way since I first asked and now I eventually get an answer. +1 applaud for you.

No.  I did not say any such thing.  In fact, I explicitly made reference to Al Qaeda AND the insurgents as disperate groups.  I am in fact aware of the difference.  You did not understand my "analysis".


Indeed Al Qaeda's effect on the US military has been insignificant in and of itself.  But you miss the bigger picture entirely.  Al Qaeda is the greatest single source of instability in Iraq.  They are the ones who targeted the mosques, civilians, leaders, etc. in order to inflame tentions and get Sunni and Shia groups fighting amongst themselves.  They knew good and well that chaos was the worst thing for Americans in Iraq, and without stoking a civil war or at the very least, sectarian violence, the US would have been free to concentrate more efforts on rebuilding instead of security.  As Iraqis became more and more furious because of the US inability to protect life and property, their overall support for the US would diminish, resulting in a flood of new recruits for Al Qaeda.  Insurgency tactics 101 - erode popular support for the occupier.  What better way than to cause so much chaos that the US could not deliver on critical promises - rebuilding infrastructure, providing medical assistance, power, clean water, jobs, and a stable, popular government. 

Eliminating the power that Al Qaeda wields has nothing to do with stopping their attacks on American soldiers.  It has to do with eliminating their ability to further incite violence and stoke tensions.  It will be impossible to put the clamps on sectarian violence if Al Qaeda is able to freely bomb any mosque in order to reignite the fight.


Again, you are only reading what is on the surface.  Of course 90% of the insurgency is domestic.  After all, the liklihood of IRAQIS forming the majority of the resistance in IRAQ seems pretty high.  There is nothing to read in this - nothing at all.  I'll also bet that the vast majority of spectacular attacks on civilian targets are from Al Qaeda.  You take that element away, and all of the sudden the picture doesn't look nearly as bad.  Furthermore, as I stated above, once the greatest power of instability is removed (Al Qaeda), reconciliation is more likely to occur.  Not before.  That is why marginalizing Al Qaeda is critical to getting on the path to victory.


They will return to insurgency if counterinsurgency operations fail.  First and foremost on the counter-insurgency agenda is building popular support.  You do this by producing tangible results on the ground that ordinary Iraqis can clearly see.  Stimulating a growing economy and creating jobs are highest on the list.  Then comes infrastructure improvements and providing services.  When the life of the ordinary Iraqi begins to improve, all of the sudden you start seeing a shift from resistance to cooperation.  You cannot have an insurgency without popular support, and that support will erode (if not fade away entirely) once the population begins to see tangible improvements.  We've seen this happen all over the world, from different cultures and different time periods.  The classic example is the British experience in Malaya and how they eventually defeated that insurgency.  Reading closely, you can see that the US is indeed persuing many of the same policies, but the sheer magnitude of chaos in Iraq at the moment makes progress slow.


And your point?  To suggest a victory can only be defined by keeping the Kurds in check and a pro-Iranian government out of power is nonsensical at best.  A pro-Iranian government is almost guaranteed, for the world will see a pro-Iranian government as one with relations no worse than those between Iran and the US.  Anything even remotely resembling cooperation will be viewed as "pro-Iranian".  They live next to each other.  They will cooperate and likely have decent relations (at least in the beginning).  To say the Iraqis will elect a pro-Iranian government is like predicting Americans will elect a pro-Canadian government.  It is essentially irrelevant, and all a matter of perspective. 

If Iraqis start having some successes and things start taking a turn for the better, they will not tolerate Iranian meddling in their affairs.  Of course, if things get worse, then it would be natural for them to turn to Iran.  The problem is that people equate "not Anti-Iranian" with "pro-Iranian".  That is a mistake.

This is all I gotta say, if Iraq no longer has Qaeda in it and the country is stabilized enough so that there isn't a massive civil war, then we will have no reason to be there. Yeah the domestic insurgents may be responsible for US military casualties....but are they going to come to US soil and attack? No. Only Al Qaeda has done that.

We are not going to have total dominance over the Iraqi people unless we pound them into submission like Saddam, but at the same time, if Qaeda is gone and Iraq is stabilized, then Iraq will be less of a threat than it was with Qaeda dominating some areas or Saddam dominating the country, or perhaps not even a threat at all besides the PKK.


One other thing, people say that Iraq will become a puppet of Iran and I question how likely that truly is. Yes, Iraq will be friendly to Iran, but the Sunni's and Kurds are not necessarily the biggest supporters of Iran and the Iranians are still viewed as Persians, not fellow Arabs. So a friend of Iran, yes...but not a puppet, or a staunch ally. Especially if the US provides Iraq with more aid than Iran does.