[Ninong]

The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that was released today concluded that even if the violence in Iraq is diminished (which is something it considers unlikely), the chances for a peaceful resolution of the sectarian differences that beset the country are unlikely to improve. And, let's not forget that this is the unclassified version that was made public. Based on previous experience with past NIE's, we know that the part that is made public is always the best case scenario.

The report also states that "challenges confronting the Iraqis are daunting" and "the term 'civil war' accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict." Wow, that's strange. Tony Snow and Deputy Leader Dick have been insisting that there is no civil war in Iraq. Only liberal Democrats and others who hate our troops would suggest otherwise. I guess that means that all of our intelligence agencies have been taken over by treasonous liberals who hate our freedom?

Right now Phony Tony is all worked up over the prospects that the Senate might pass some version of a watered down anti-surge, non-binding resolution that our boy king will ignore anyway. He said those Senators who are thinking about voting for such a treasonous statement should stop and think about how they are aiding Sammy bin Laden. The White House doesn't usually mention Sammy's name, so I guess they're really worked up this time. Has anyone seen Sammy lately? I hear he's in Pakistan, where he has been given a guarantee that he will not be disturbed.

Another strange conclusion of the new NIE on Iraq is that it predicts that the situation there will continue to deteriorate no matter what we do. They are talking about it getting worse than it has been for the past several months. Worse, not better. Think of how bad it has been for the past five or six months and try to imagine it getting worse. That's the official prediction of our intelligence agencies.

The NIE states that "broader Sunni acceptance of the current political structure and federalism" and "significant concessions by Shia and Kurds" could lead to stability -- but the NIE's earlier section viewed both these events as unlikely. To put this in the realm of the current debate, President Bush's "surge" is designed to give political breathing room to events that the intelligence community formally judges as unrealistic: "...even if violence is diminished, given the current winner-take-all attitude and sectarian animosities infecting the political scene, Iraqi leaders will be hard pressed to achieve sustained political reconciliation in the time frame of this Estimate."

Here is the official NIE pronouncement on Iran: Iraq's neighbors are "not likely to be a major driver of violence or the prospects for stability because of the self-sustaining character of Iraq's internal sectarian dynamics." I wonder if that's why the Bush Administration didn't release their promised report on Iran's activities in Iraq yesterday as originally planned? The official explanation is that there isn't consensus yet on the reliability of the "evidence" proving the extent of Iran's involvement. The official NIE seems to take the position that Iran is not a major factor at all.

I found this excellent article (link no longer works) online today that gives good insight into why an increase of U.S. forces in Baghdad will have no lasting effect. What I like about this report is that the reporter is interviewing two first lieutenants on the ground in Baghdad and not simply copying the propaganda put out by the Pentagon. We were lied to before we went into Iraq and we were continously lied to about the progress we were making in Iraq, so why should we suddenly expect the truth out of the Administration or the Pentagon?

[Poseidon]

George, I struggle to find an answer to the Iraqi conflict. I read what I come across, I read what you post, and I watch some of the stuff they spew on CNN. I work with an Army national guard Captain that will be re-deployed to Iraq in March for a 14 month tour, Tiff is a very bright young lady, and she is in favor of staying in Iraq as long as it takes to "get it right".

Myself, I am conflicted to find a solution that is best for us, and them. If we stay, I believe we should add hundreds of thousands of troops. Make the force that is there so LARGE that it can move at will and destroy the opposition everywhere at the same time. If we don't give the enemy a place to run then we WILL eliminate them.

My other feeling, or opinion is 100% the opposite. LEAVE, and LEAVE NOW! Sometimes I feel that if we pack up and scoot out of there, Iran, Syria, and Turkey will each carve out a piece of "old Iraq" out for themselves and annex it for their use. What would be so bad about that scenario? Heck maybe even Kuwait could claim a piece of Iraq.

I am of the opinion that we as a nation need to do SOMETHING, but for the life of me, I can't decide what that something should be.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Poseidon

If we don't give the enemy a place to run then we WILL eliminate them.

And who is "the enemy" in Iraq?

If you say al-Qaida, then according to our own military estimates al-Qaida peaked at around 1,300 operatives in Iraq and is now down to around 600, mainly in al-Anbar province. They followed us into Iraq. They weren't there during Saddam's reign.

If you say the Sunni insurgents, then they are simply fighting us because we are supporting their adversaries, the Shia, and they refuse to accept minority status. That's a political issue that cannot be settled militarily.

If you say Iran because they are aiding the Badr Brigade (a Shiite militia), then what about Saudi Arabia? They're aiding the Sunni insurgents. More than 90% of our casualties are inflicted by Sunni insurgents. Saudi Arabia is financing the Sunni insurgency. In fact, Saudi Arabia has already declared that if we leave Iraq and it appears that the Shia majority is inflicting unacceptable conditions on the Sunnis, they will send troops into Iraq to defend the Sunni minority.

We should withdraw our troops to Kurdistan and Kuwait and allow the Sunnis and the Shia to resolve their own political differences. They don't want to do that because they don't want to live together peacefully as one country.

Once the Kurds regain control of Kirkuk at the end of this year, they will tell the rest of Iraq to go to hell. It's up to the Shia and the Sunnis to figure out what they want to do. At this point, it doesn't look like either side is willing to compromise. All we are doing is training and supplying one side (the Shia) with arms so that they can put down the other side, the Sunnis. Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia totally controls the national police force (the Interior Ministry) and they are rapidly taking over the Iraqi Army (the Defense Ministry). Read the article I linked and read what those two first lieutenants have to say about this.

We can't withdraw from the region entirely but we can pull out of the Green Zone and let them work it out among themselves. In the meantime, maybe we could take care of our unfinished business in Afghanistan.

One of the reasons we can't leave the area entirely is the very real threat that Turkey will invade Kurdistan, Iran will take over Southern Iraq and Baghdad via their client Iraqi Shiite allies and the surrounding Sunni Arab countries (e.g., Saudi Arabia) will invade al-Anbar province and support the Sunnis in their struggle against the Shia majority.

The Shia politicians have to be willing to work out a deal with the Sunnis but they won't do that as long as we're there to defend them. They can always threaten to sic the U.S. Marines on the Sunnis. The population of Iraq is roughly 60% Shia, 20% Sunni and 20% Kurds. The Kurds would be perfectly happy to be left alone. The Shia have to be willing to give the Sunnis something more than they are entitled to based on their 20% of the population. Think of what Nelson Mandela did to satisfy the white minority in South Africa to ease the transition to black majority rule. It worked! It was a peaceful transition.

P.S. -- And, by the way, the Sunni insurgents are not going to follow us to the U.S. to "fight us here" as the Bush Administration would have us believe and al-Qaida is going to try to cause us trouble no matter what we do in Iraq.


__________________________________________________ _______

“I’m a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind.” --George W. Bush, Feb. 7, 2004, on Meet the Press with Tim Russert.

“I wish I wasn't [sic] the war president. Who in the heck wants to be a war president? I don't.” --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 6, 2004.

"You know, when I campaigned here in 2000, I said, I want to be a war President. No President wants to be a war President, but I am one."--George W. Bush, Des Moines, Iowa, Oct. 26, 2006

[schrocat]

Originally Posted by Ninong

In the meantime, maybe we could take care of our unfinished business in Afghanistan.

Amen.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by schrocat

Amen.

The Brits made a deal with the pro-Taliban tribal elders, then they were surprised that the Taliban moved back into town the night after they gave it up. This is the town that they defended for weeks against Taliban attacks.

The Taliban controls the countryside unless the allies have occupation forces in that particular spot.

Some sectors of the Afghan economy are on the rise!

__________________________________________________

"And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I'm sorry it's the case, and I'll work hard to try to elevate it."— George W. Bush, Speaking on National Public Radio, Jan. 29, 2007.

[Poseidon]

So is there a good reason to NOT let Iran and Saudi Arabia from working out the differences?

What does the US have to gain by staying in? What do we lose by leaving, other the face?

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Poseidon

So is there a good reason to NOT let Iran and Saudi Arabia from working out the differences?

What does the US have to gain by staying in? What do we lose by leaving, other the face?

It's a complicated mess. We had no business going into Iraq in the first place. It is hard to imagine how it could have been managed any worse than it has been. Remember, the Administration, including the President himself, expected this to be a cakewalk with virtually no casualties. In fact, he assured Pat Robertson that there would be no casualties.

The Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Eric Shinseki, testified before Congress that it would require "several hundred thousand" troops to occupy Iraq and both Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz ridiculed him and said his estimate was absurd. Rumsfeld went so far as to almost immediately name his replacement even though he had several months left before his retirement. Wolfowitz said that estimates that the war in Iraq might cost as much as $100 billion were absurd. He promised that it would cost no more than $50 billion and that the entire cost of reconstruction would be covered by Iraq's oil revenues. The cost to date is approximately $400 billion and President Bush is now requesting another $245 billion for 2007 and 2008. The total cost will probably be well over $1 trillion.

Many of our senior military leaders, such as Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni, a former CENTCOM commander, told us BEFORE we invaded Iraq that it would be a mistake to do so and that our policy of "containment" was working.

In November, the Joint Chiefs of Staff made it public that they unanimously disagreed with the President's pending decision to send more troops to Iraq. And, BTW, it won't be just 21,500 troops. Those are just the combat units. There will be an equal number of support units. The true number will be at least 35,000 and possibly as high as 48,000. And the cost will be at least three times the number Bush is putting out.

Besides the JCS, both Gen. John Abizaid and Gen. George Casey said they did not think it would be wise to send more troops to Iraq. Abizaid's planned retirement was speeded up by a few months and Casey is being promoted up to Army Chief of Staff. At his confirmation hearing Sen. John McCain ripped him to pieces for doing such a lousy job the past couple of years in Iraq. Sure, blame the generals for doing exactly as they were told by Rumsfeld. Obviously somebody has to take the blame and it can't be the neo-con crackpots who dreamed up and mismanaged this debacle. Somebody should look into what Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez did before Casey took over. He really screwed up royally but he was doing what Rumsfeld wanted him to do. In fact, Rumsfeld sent Maj. Gen. Miller there to make sure Sanchez got the message on how to Gitmoize Iraq.

Britain's top general said several months back that our presence in Iraq was only making matters worse, not better. Tony Blair immediately freaked out and said that the general didn't mean it quite the way it came out.

We are caught in the middle of a sectarian civil war. What makes it especially scary is that it is based on rival religious factions. These religious crackpots think nothing of blowing themselves up so that they can become instant saints and qualify for their 72 virgins. People who think they are killing in the name of God can be extremely dangerous. History is replete with examples of this sort of lunacy.

The Iraqis have to work out a political settlement for sharing power and resources. They obviously aren't interested in doing it the way we want them to do it, so let's just leave them to themselves and let them work it out. They have been lying through their teeth. There is no unity government! That's a farce!

Why is it that Bush has dismissed virtually all of the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton commission? They warned specifically AGAINST sending more troops to Iraq. They were emphatic about that. They also advised opening diplomatic talks with Iran and Syria and all of the other states in the region. The Bush Administration refuses to talk to Iran because they are intent on attacking Iran. Don't believe anything they say to the contrary, they are still planning to attack Iran within the next few months.


__________________________________________________ _____

“Oh, no, we’re not going to have any casualties.” --George W. Bush discussing the Iraq war with Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson, when Robertson told him he should prepare the American people for casualties.

[zhenya]

It is interesting to see how we, the people, will be reacting to this insanity by our "leaders". As parents, if we see kids fighting, we separate them and take away their toys, or something to that extent. Are we, the Congress and Senate, going to take away the "toys" from our seem to gone insane leader. And his accomplices?
Also, I often wonder if GW will be allowed to pin this disaster on someone else by the Congress, and people of this country... He'll probably say that it was Iraq and then Iran that precluded him to have an easy victory. Victory? What's that?

I was browsing Barry Lando's blog and started to laugh when I read January 18th entry, it is about the troops increase by a precise number of 21000 that he asked for. You can read it here the mathematical reasons as to why..

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by zhenya

Also, I often wonder if GW will be allowed to pin this disaster on someone else...

He and his new best buddy, John McCain, are already pinning the blame on someone else -- the generals! If only the generals had done a better job in Iraq, things would have worked out just dandy. If only the generals hadn't allowed those "half a dozen" oddballs on the night shift at Abu Ghraib to have digital cameras, no one would have known about what was going on there.

The people with the most military experience advised AGAINST Rumsfeld's plans for the invasion and post-Saddam occupation of Iraq. Colin Powell was opposed to it but he was ignored. He told the president that it shouldn't be done with the level of troops Rumsfeld was proposing but he was dismissed as old school military by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Wolfowitz, like Dick Cheney, was never in the military and Rumsfeld was a Navy pilot who never saw combat. Bush himself was an occasional Texas Air National Guard pilot who defended the coast of Texas from invasion by the Viet Cong.

Those who spoke out were Shinseki'd by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. That would be those who were on active duty at the time. And, unless you are an extremely high-ranking flag officer and called to testify before a congressional committee, you are supposed to keep your opinions to yourself unless you are speaking in private with your superiors. It is virtually impossible for an active duty general officer to publicly criticize the actions of his superiors.

Those retired general officers who publicly supported the Administration's plans for Operation Iraqi Freedom were closely aligned politically with right-wing neo-con organizations like the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Several very high ranking retired general officers (e.g., Gen. Anthony Zinni) spoke out against the invasion of Iraq BEFORE it took place. They, along with everyone else in the military and intelligence communities, knew that Saddam did NOT pose a threat. In fact, the most common comment prior to the invasion was along the lines of, "Well, maybe they have seen something that I haven't now that I'm retired, but I'm not aware of anything that would indicate that Saddam poses an imminent threat to our security that would cause us to abandon our current policy of containment."

The British deputy ambassador to the U.N. during the runup to the Iraq war is publishing a new book that is scheduled for release any day now. In it he will say that Tony Blair and his government were well aware prior to the invasion that Saddam did NOT pose a threat but that Blair was determined to go along with George W. Bush's plans for a military presence in the Middle East. The Project for a New American Century has been pushing this idea for the past 15 years, at least. They want a permanent U.S. military presence in the region to control the oil resources there. The world will run out of oil sometime this century. Whether it is in the next 60 years or the next 80 years depends on who you choose to listen to. However, as the supply dwindles, the price of oil will skyrocket and access to it will be hotly contested. The transition from fossil fuels to alternative energy sources may not be as efficient as we would hope.

As far as the Bush Administration's current Iraq policy is concerned, it's driven by politics more than reality. Bush refuses to admit that his ill-conceived adventure in nation building is a miserable failure, just like everything else in his pathetic administration. The latest NIE on Iraq was ready to be released in October but Bush delayed it until after the November elections. He said it was still being edited and revised. That's not true. It was complete before the November elections.

As bad as the new NIE is, remember that it is really four months old and things are even worse today than they were four or five months ago. And the report predicts that things will get even worse still in 2007. There are reports on the internet that Deputy CIA Director Stephen Kappes told a recent meeting of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers that although he could not get into details about the situation in Iraq because of its classified nature, if people knew what was happening on the ground, they would become instantly depressed. Just another indication that this latest escalation is a mistake! You don't reinforce a losing situation.

Even after four months of revising and tweaking this latest NIE to try to turn it from chicken s--- into chicken salad, it still paints an extremely dire picture of a situation that is spiraling out of control with little hope for the future of the country. And the report does not blame Iran for the violence in Iraq. What an inconvenient omission at a time when the Bush Administration is trying to come up with an excuse to attack Iran.

The whole region is in danger of exploding. Our invasion of Iraq has destabilized the region and it has strengthened Iran! It has not improved the security of the region or the world at large. And now we are faced with the prospect of Iran, followed by a dozen other countries, going nuclear. North Korea has ignored the NPT and now Iran is about to do the same. India and Pakistan have never signed it and we have recently signed an agreement to assist India in its nuclear program. Obviously Israel has never signed the NPT either but the whole world knows they have at least 200 nuclear warheads. They can get away with it because we are their protector. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I'm just pointing out that Israel has nukes! It is not in the national interests of the nation of Israel to allow any Muslim country in the Middle East to acquire nuclear weapons, especially one whose religious fanatic president has declared his intention to wipe Israel off the map.

It is not in our interests, or the interests of any of the current nuclear powers, to allow any new countries to develop nuclear weapons. It is still possible that we, with the cooperation of our traditional allies plus Russia and China, can put a stop to Iran's nuclear enrichment program without having to resort to bombing their facilities. However, it is not likely to happen during the next two years simply because the Bush Administration doesn't want to go that route. They are convinced that they can wipe out Iran's nuclear capabilities and eliminate Iran as a military power in the region "without taking casualties" and without using ground forces. I think I've seen this movie before.

[Ninong]

In today's suicide bomb attack in Baghdad, 121 135 people were killed and 226 220 300 wounded.

It doesn't stop! And it's only going to get worse! This is the consensus opinion of our own intelligence agencies.

Bush is still determined to stay the course with his failed policies in Iraq. At least he has Laura, Barney, McCain and Lieberman in his corner.

P.S. -- And remember, Tony Snow says it's still not a civil war. I think I'm inclined to agree with him. It is now much worse than a civil war!

And if you're wondering why the Bush Administration is so adamant in refusing to admit that it's a civil war, it's because Bush is on video tape stating that he will withdraw our troops if the situation in Iraq turns into a civil war.

[zhenya]

It is probably this "civil war" predicament that makes people think twice about withdrawing our military from the region abruptly. In this artificially created country "civil war" would not be a war at all, in any military understanding of the word. It will be an escalation in violence that would result in slaughter of a few million people, including women and children,on all sides and then subside, just like it has been for years in that region where religeous wars were common and will be common for years to come.
I think it is Brits and us that make this silly mistakes of thinking that we can change "their world" into ours, and make some profit doing it.
In our case it is our cowardly Congress that allowed this to happen in the first place, IMO. They wouldn't be caught dead looking "unpatriotic" and loose votes.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by schrocat

Amen.

The Brits have now decided to retake that town from the Taliban.

[Ninong]

Yet another retired Marine Corps general and former head of CENTCOM, retired Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, says the Bush Administration's policies in Iraq and Iran will lead to a disaster for the United States and the Middle East. [Hoar was CENTCOM commander from 1991 to 1994. He was appointed by President George H. W. Bush.]

Excerpts:

In a letter to the Sunday Times newspaper, the three former officers urged President Bush to open talks, "without preconditions," with the Iranian government in a bid to find a diplomatic solution.

They said Britain "has a vital role to play in securing a renewed diplomatic push" and urged Prime Minister Tony Blair to make it clear he would oppose any military attack on Iran.

The officers said an attack "would have disastrous consequences for security in the region, coalition forces in Iraq and would further exacerbate regional and global tensions."

"The current crisis must be resolved through diplomacy," they said.

You can read the whole article here.

P.S. -- The consequences of an attack on Iran could be devastating in so many different ways. Iran's nuclear enrichment program must be stopped but it must be a joint effort that includes all of our traditional allies plus Russia and China. A unilateral military attack by either the U.S. or Israel will backfire.

[Ninong]

OK, so I realize we didn't get the puppet we wanted in the new Iraqi "unity" government simply because he received less than 2% of the vote. (Diebold doesn't have a contract over there. Not yet anyway.)

But what about this dude? He's a convicted terrorist (he bombed a U.S. embassy) who is a member of Nouri al-Maliki's coalition government.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A man sentenced to death in Kuwait for the 1983 bombings of the U.S. and French embassies now sits in Iraq's parliament as a member of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's ruling coalition, according to U.S. military intelligence.

Jamal Jafaar Mohammed's seat in parliament gives him immunity from prosecution. Washington says he supports Shiite insurgents and acts as an Iranian agent in Iraq.

U.S. military intelligence in Iraq has approached al-Maliki's government with the allegations against Jamal Jafaar Mohammed, whom it says assists Iranian special forces in Iraq as "a conduit for weapons and political influence."

[Ninong]

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Peter Pace admitted to the Senate Armed Services Committee today (Tuesday) that we won't have enough equipment in Iraq to support any new troops before July at the earliest! We still don't have enough armored Humvees, among other problems.

Not to worry, Gen. Pace says that the troops will just share what they have. Reminds me of Donald Rumsfeld telling the troops that you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wished you had. The troops were complaining to Rummy that they were having to scrounge around Iraqi junkyards for scrap iron to up-armor their Humvees. I think that was a few years ago if I remember correctly. I guess things haven't changed much? [Rummy complained later that the soldier who asked that question had been coached by a member of the liberal media.]

"The commanders on the ground have talked with the chief of staff of the Army and the commandant of the Marine Corps and have agreed that they will be able to share the assets on the ground so that no soldier or Marine will leave the compound without proper protection," Pace said when asked why more troops should be deployed immediately.

P.S. -- This is like going on vacation and having your luggage arrive five months later.

[Ninong]

Another U.S. helicopter shot down in Iraq. This is the fifth helicopter to be shot down in the past two weeks and the second one attributed to a ground-to-air missile. The other three were reportedly shot down by automatic weapons fire while flying very low. That's possible but not likely considering the armor against small arms fire from below. I guess they were all lucky hits on the tail rotor or something?

It was American-supplied Stinger shoulder-fired ground-to-air missiles that the Mujahideen used so effectively against Soviet helicopters in Afghanistan.

[Ninong]

Are things improving now that we have started to pump in extra troops and begin our sweeps of Baghdad?

How about:

Two weeks with American units that patrolled with Iraqi forces in west and east Baghdad found that Iraqi officers sold new uniforms meant for their troops, and that their soldiers wore plastic shower sandals while manning checkpoints, abused prisoners and solicited bribes to free suspects they'd captured.

During a patrol last week in a violent west Baghdad neighborhood that's the scene of regular sniper fire at U.S. and Iraqi troops, Staff Sgt. Jeremie Oliver saw Iraqi soldiers gathered in the middle of the road, near a streetlight, making them an easy target for gunmen on the surrounding rooftops.

Thinking that something might be wrong, Oliver, 30, of Farmington, Maine, jogged over. The Iraqis were looking at pornography on a cell phone.

[...]


"If we don't give them some kind of lead in this, we will be here forever," said U.S. Staff Sgt. Erik Helton, who patrols in east Baghdad with the 1st Infantry Division. "But half the Iraqi army is either sympathetic to (sectarian militias) or are actual members."

American forces usually keep the Iraqis in the dark about upcoming operations, said Helton, 27, of Richlands, Va. "We're careful not to give them information before a raid. Who knows who they're affiliated with or who they're going to call?" he said.


The declassified version of a report last month by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said sectarian divisions "erode the dependability of many units, many are hampered by personnel and equipment shortfalls, and a number of Iraqi units have refused to serve outside of the areas where they were recruited."

Despite improvements, the report concluded, Iraqi forces "will be hard pressed in the next 12-18 months to execute significantly increased security responsibilities, and particularly to operate independently against Shia militias with success."

[...]


In a west Baghdad neighborhood where bodies often turn up beside the road, facedown on the pavement with bullets in their heads, U.S. Army 1st Lt. Brendan Griswold looked on last week as Iraqi soldiers patted down three men at a checkpoint and thumbed through their documents. The Iraqi soldiers found a fake Iraqi passport on one of the men, whom they suspected was Jordanian and possibly an insurgent.


Griswold didn't stir, determined to let the Iraqis conduct the search on their own.


"I like going out with some of them. But some of the others are hard to control; they run away when things happen," said the 24-year-old 1st Cavalry Division platoon commander from Leavenworth, Kan.


An Iraqi soldier approached him. "Where do we put them?" he asked.


Griswold pointed to the Iraqi army Humvees in front of him. Iraqi soldiers grabbed the three men, opened the back trunks of their Humvees and started to stuff them inside.


"No, not in there," Griswold yelled, as he cussed under his breath and walked over to supervise.


After he made sure the detainees were seated in the Humvees, the convoy drove to an Iraqi army intelligence office. The Iraqi troops led the three men into what looked like a darkened closet. Griswold asked the Iraqis not to abuse the detainees, then shook hands and said goodbye. As he left the intelligence building, he asked his interpreter what the Iraqi troops would do to the detainees.

"They were asking them how much they would pay to be released," the interpreter replied with a grin.

You can read the full San Jose Mercury News article here.

Remember that as they stand up, we will stand down. At this rate, we'll be there forever.

On the other hand, we were assured repeatedly during the recent mid-term election campaign by Our Leader, Deputy Leader Dick, Condoleezza "Mushroom Cloud" Rice, Rummy "I don't do diplomacy" Rumsfailed and Phony Tony Snow that we were making wonderful progress in Iraq and that many units of the Iraqi army were capable of operating on their own.

Obviously these newspaper reporters hate our troops and our freedom and that explains why they are spreading these awful reports about minor problems in Iraq instead of telling us about the wonderful progress we are making over there.

[Ninong]

Coverage of the "surge" in today's L.A. Times:

BAGHDAD — A month after the Bush administration announced a "surge" in troops for Baghdad, Iraqis are still waiting for anything to change.

Fewer than 20% of the additional Iraqi and American troops have arrived so far. And the roughly 5,000 that have arrived have yet to make a visible impact in this sprawling city of 6 million people, where thousands of paramilitary gunmen patrol the streets.

U.S. officials are trying to manage expectations both domestically and in Iraq, continually asserting that the new forces will slowly take up positions in the capital over the coming months.

But after one of the bloodiest weeks since the U.S.-led invasion of 2003, Iraqis are increasingly impatient. A series of high-profile attacks on both civilians and security forces killed more than 1,000 Iraqis and at least 33 U.S. troops in the first nine days of the month.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has said he is investigating whether he can speed the pace of the troop buildup. But a senior Pentagon official said this week that it was unlikely that U.S. troops could be sent to Baghdad any faster than planned. The five brigades going to the capital are due to arrive one per month, with the last coming in May.

You can read the rest here.

[Ninong]

How Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld continuously downsized our military's Iraq invasion plans:

Newly published documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by The National Security Archive show in detail how former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld continuously rejected the invasion plans proposed by Central Command.

Our contingency plan in 1998 called for more than 380,000 troops but former CENTCOM commander, Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni, didn't think that number would be adequate to maintain post-war order in Iraq and in 1999 he initiated Desert Crossing, war games that showed that a minimum of 400,000 troops would be required and even that force could prove inadequate under various likely scenarios.

The report forewarned that regime change may cause regional instability by opening the doors to "rival forces bidding for power" which, in turn, could cause societal "fragmentation along religiou