This is why the US should withdraw from Iraq now

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/world-news/middle-east/basra-attacks-down-90-since-british-troops-left-1221511.html

[Padfoot]

Exactly!  I've been saying this for months now.  So much of the violence is Iraq is related to the fact that our troops are still there.  We are being attacked because we refuse to leave.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Exactly!  I've been saying this for months now.  So much of the violence is Iraq is related to the fact that our troops are still there.  We are being attacked because we refuse to leave.

We can't just leave completely.  We need to move the troops and watch the borders - withdraw all troops from all interior cities - Senator Hagel's plan - and that's why I loved the man.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

No more wars for Israel.

[The Duke]

And there has been a massive drop in violence in Baghdad and Anbar and Diyala since the surge began, a fact you continually refuse to acknowledge.  If the equation were a simple as "less troops=less violence", then how do you explain the drop in violence from the surge?  Your simplistic understanding of the world around you where everything is seen through a hyper-partisan lens is tedious.

The reality is more cynical and its not the first time we've seen it.  This is a classic strategy of the Mahdi Army to create a calm before the storm.  The British cut a deal to withdraw from Basra in exchange for a cessation of Mahdi Army activities.  Sound familiar?  That's because in 2004, the Mahdi Army cut a similar deal with the US where we promised not to arrest al-Sadr for the murder of a rival cleric in exhcange for his cessation of militia activity.  Sadr and the Mahdi Army used the lull to re-arm and later launched another offensive.  The next year, we cut another deal, promising to end operations against the Mahdi Army if Sadr's party joined the political process and ceased milita activity.  He again used the lull in operations against him to re-arm and this time consolidate control over large sections of Baghdad.  This is Sadr's strategy: Engage coalition troops, cut a deal, use the deal to create a window to expand his operations.  Start new offensive and again cut a deal that creates yet another window for you to expand your own capabilities for the next offensive you're planning.

The British have fallen into the Sadr trap.  The Mahdi is using this time to quietly consolidate its control over Basra (A fact that no doubt irritates their rivals, the Badr Corps and Fadhila, who also want to cotnrol Basra).

This development is hardly good news.  Before, criminal gangs were trying to run Basra but foun d themselves stifled by British troops.  The British presence resulted in violent clashes with militia but also prevented the criminal gangs and death squads from taking over the city.  Now, there is less violence because the criminal gangs and death squads run the city unopposed.  Can this really be called an improvement?  I suspect that soon, there will be substantial violence between rival Shi'ite factions over control of basra and US troops will have to retake the city.  We appear to have learned many lessons from our past mistakes, lessons being aptly applied by General Petraeus in Anbar, Diyal, and Baghdad.  However, we still appear to have no idea how to deal with Muqtada al-Sadr.

[ilikeverin]

Of course violence is down in Basra; Basra is much more ethnically homogeneous than Baghdad, so most of the violence was directed against British troops.

[patrick1]

As I view it, the whole purpose of our exercise in Iraq was a "Great Game" geo-political strategy which has failed in most of its objectives.  I think we should drawn down our forces and keep say half a dozen bases for rapid reaction to regional problems which may and will likely arise.  I don't see the wisdom in policing Iraq in Humvees waiting to be attacked.  Ive known several good young men who died to IED's and I really don;t want to see more for failed policy.

[Smash255]

As I view it, the whole purpose of our exercise in Iraq was a "Great Game" geo-political strategy which has failed in most of its objectives.  I think we should drawn down our forces and keep say half a dozen bases for rapid reaction to regional problems which may and will likely arise.  I don't see the wisdom in policing Iraq in Humvees waiting to be attacked.  Ive known several good young men who died to IED's and I really don;t want to see more for failed policy.

Strategy and what the plan going into Iraq was in the 1st place doesn't belong in the same sentence.  The term is used quite a bit, but we are basically playing a game of whack-a-mole and that simply is not good policy.  When we are celebrating the fact that the violence is back at the 05 & 06 levels something is seriously wrong.  I would personally like to see all the troops go home, though I can understand some suggesting we should have a small non-combat force in the region or surrounding areas in case of emergencies.  However,no way should we still continue to retain combat forces in Iraq.  To continue with the same basic and failed policy to hope with blind faith that it just turns out well is just absurd, and that is what got us into this whole debacle in the first place.   

[The Duke]

As I view it, the whole purpose of our exercise in Iraq was a "Great Game" geo-political strategy which has failed in most of its objectives.  I think we should drawn down our forces and keep say half a dozen bases for rapid reaction to regional problems which may and will likely arise.  I don't see the wisdom in policing Iraq in Humvees waiting to be attacked.  Ive known several good young men who died to IED's and I really don;t want to see more for failed policy.

"Rapid Reaction" strategy is exactly what failed for years under Rumsfeld.  He cloistered US troops in Forward Operating Bases, then sent them into Sunni citadels to clear them out.  Then they would go back to the Forward Operating bases and wait for their next "Rapid Reaction" order.  Of course, as soon as they left the Sunni citadel, the insurgents would filter back in and the troops would have to start all over again clearing the city six months later.

It was a senseless strategy.  You cannot beat an insurgency unless you hold the territory you take.  Finally, we are holding the territory we take.  The result is far lower levels of violence.

Not that we're even close to being out of the woods, but its nice to see we're moving in the right dirtection under Petraeus.