Anyone Doubting the Success of the Surge?

[John317]

---------Over a year ago, there were up to a 90 attacks per month in Baghdad, whereas today there are something like 4 per month.

---------Fifteen of eighteen bench marks have been reached.

---------Iraq's prime minister said Saturday that the government has defeated terrorism in the country, a sign of growing confidence after recent crackdowns against Sunni extremists and Shiite militias.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki launched the crackdowns to extend the authority of the government over areas in Baghdad and elsewhere that have largely been under the control of armed groups since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

"They were intending to besiege Baghdad and control it," al-Maliki said. "But thanks to the will of the tribes, security forces, army and all Iraqis, we defeated them."

-------Roadside bomb attacks and fatalities in Iraq are down by almost 90% over the last year, according to Pentagon records and interviews with military leaders.

In May 2008, 11 U.S. troops were killed by blasts from improvised explosive devices (IEDs) compared with 92 in May 2007, records show. That's an 88% decrease.

--------Australian Govt declares Iraq mission a success

Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon has paid tribute to Australia's combat troops in Iraq, saying they will leave a lasting legacy in the strife-torn nation.

The 550-member Overwatch Battle Group-West (OBG-W), based at Camp Terendak within the sprawling Tallil base outside the city of Nasiriyah in Iraq's Dhi Qar province, has now started its withdrawal.

As the flag was lowered on Australia's combat commitment, Mr Fitzgibbon on Monday declared the mission a success which had allowed Iraq's own security forces to successfully take control.

--------Charles Krauthammer recounts the long list of accomplishments:

1. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki sent the Iraqi army into Basra. It achieved in a few weeks what the British had failed to do in four years: take the city, drive out the Mahdi Army and seize the ports from Iranian-backed militias.

2. When Mahdi fighters rose up in support of their Basra brethren, the Iraqi army at Maliki's direction confronted them and prevailed in every town -- Najaf, Karbala, Hilla, Kut, Nasiriyah and Diwaniyah -- from Basra to Baghdad.

3. Without any American ground forces, the Iraqi army entered and occupied Sadr City, the Mahdi Army stronghold.

4. Maliki flew to Mosul, directing a joint Iraqi-U.S. offensive against the last redoubt of al-Qaeda, which had already been driven out of Anbar, Baghdad and Diyala provinces.

5. The Iraqi parliament enacted a de-Baathification law, a major Democratic benchmark for political reconciliation.

6. Parliament also passed the other reconciliation benchmarks -- a pension law, an amnesty law, and a provincial elections and powers law. Oil revenue is being distributed to the provinces through the annual budget.

7. With Maliki having demonstrated that he would fight not just Sunni insurgents (e.g., in Mosul) but Shiite militias (e.g., the Mahdi Army), the Sunni parliamentary bloc began negotiations to join the Shiite-led government. (The final sticking point is a squabble over a sixth cabinet position.)

[John317]

Question: Does the success of the surge mean that the US can or should now withdraw all its troops from Iraq?

My own opinion is that it needs to be left up to the military leaders on the ground--- when they say their mission has been accomplished and that the troops can be withdrawn safely without endangering the stability of the region and the government, then it should be done, but over a period of time. It seems likely that this will be the case sooner rather than later.

It is unlikely that it would ever mean the withdrawal of all American troops. As long as they are there, they will serve as a deterrent to neighbors such as Iran and to groups such as al Qaeda, etc.

None of this would have been possible if Obama's view had been put into effect. If the US had withdrawn a year or more ago, Iraq by this time would have already seen defeat at the hands of the insurgents and extremists. I believe McCain has been proven right.

[Bravus]

How many attacks per month were there in 2002? Anyone, anyone...?

[doctorj]

It is unlikely that it would ever mean the withdrawal of all American troops. As long as they are there, they will serve as a deterrent to neighbors such as Iran and to groups such as al Qaeda, etc.

This view suggests that a train armed force of Iraqis cannot provide some security for Iraq. Maybe where it should go is to have Iraqi armed forces perhaps supported by the USA through weapons, training and other services. I am rather against seeing the US armed forces continuing for a prolonged time. I believe there will never be peace in Iraq while the US forces remain.

[John317]

I understand your concern about peace. I share it.

But when it comes to U.S. forces in Iraq showing that Iraqi forces cannot provide security for Iraq, the same might have been said about Europe and South Korea. Our forces in those places acted as a deterrent. It was U.S. forces that kept the USSR from invading Western Europe, and it was our military presence in South Korea that prevents the North from re-invading the South. I see U.S. forces in Iraq performing the same role-- to keep the peace just as they have in Europe and Korea for the last 50+ years. But I'm with you in hoping that the US forces don't have to be there for much longer.

[jasd]

2002?

Expanding the parameters? okay...,

Anything of significance that might have precipitated the particulars of the matters under discussion? Say, an event that had the entire world chorusing, "Today we are America!"? an event which coalesced the efforts of 40 nations? Say, in

2001?

(We lost almost 37,000 of our boys and girls in the Korea war (it wasn't even an American war but a UN war) - which breaks down to an average of 'bout a 1,000 a month. The strategic importance of the Korean peninsula had practically nil importance to us - whereas, the greater Mideast is of inestimable importance to us - in both the near and far years. Overall, ...a bad time for Americans to weenie-whine over flexing our brawn for perceived nat'l interests.)

Oh my! --Pogo

[John317]

How many attacks per month were there in 2002? Anyone, anyone...?

Let us suppose that we concede that invading Iraq was a terrible idea. OK, now what? We still have to deal with the present, and in the present we are very much there. What do we do about it? There are consequences to picking up and leaving tomorrow. Do we want to do that? How would that improve things? How would that be better for either the U.S. or the Iraqis?

[Dr. Shane]

If Saddam had been forthcoming with the weapons inspectors they would have been out of his country and sanctions would have been lifted by 1995. It is Saddam that had a thirst for WMDs who brought this whole mess on himself. I don't know how many political enemies Saddam killed in 2002. It is generally estimated that he killed over one million political enemies during his time in power.

[Bravus]

Yeah, sorry, I didn't really mean to make us trot out all the arguments for why America had to be there all over again: we have agreed to disagree about that issue. My point (and I probably should have been less concise) was that 'success of the surge' is a very relative thing: hailing it as something becoming better is frustrating to me because it's more a case of something becoming 'less worser', but still plenty bad. And it needn't have happened. I agree that that's the situation you know find yourselves in: I guess my other point is that those who seek to gain praise for the 'success of the surge' need also, always, to be held accountable for the 'failure of the invasion'.

[Dr. Shane]

The critics of the Bush Administration had said for a long time that he didn't have enough troops there from the very beginning. Many of these same critics actually opposed the surge (which made no sense) but what the surge has shown is that they were right. If the Bush Administration had started out with more troops or increased the number there earlier things may have went much better.

If America is able to leave Iraq with a functioning democracy that is a good thing. Iraqis will be better off. Their infrastructure will have been made better. People in rural areas have better roads, hospitals, schools, water, sewer and electrical power. Iraq's oil revenue is going into the infrastructure rather than a dictator's pockets and those he attempts to bribe. The cost, of course is high. Thousands of lives have been lost. Some will say the cost was too high and that Saddam would have never killed that many in that short of a time. The cost to free the slaves in the US was incredibly high. Freedom isn't free and it is hard to honestly evaluate if it is worth the price paid.

[jasd]

>>It is Saddam that had a thirst for WMDs...<<

Speaking of which, I heard it on the skinny that Canada recently took receipt of 606 tons of yellow cake - from Iraq.

Say what!? --Pogo

Ya'think Joe Wilson of Valerie Plame and 'Scooter' Libby notoriety knew 'bout that uranium hoard in Iraq? Must've, he knew everything 'bout everything - according to our 'Gd Bless America' media... (yeah, of course, I state the latter with TIC)

Canada!? --jasd

Ya'think? or urban legend?

[Woody]

That pales in comparison to the amount of Mustard Gas that they found in Iraq.

Of course the media would not want to mention any of this.

[Bravus]

Evidence please, on the mustard gas story. Do you think, given the importance of the WMD issue in relation to this war, that such discoveries would *not* be trumpeted aloud and abroad? Of course they would. So give me one or two good solid links (not to massively partisan right-wing sites, to some kind of international media) and I'll accept the truth of the mustard gas stories. Otherwise they're unsubstantiated rumors...

The yellowcake story is an interesting one, and does support the idea that Saddam had the beginnings of a nuclear program. But since he had no enrichment plant, he was years from even being able to enrich to fuel standards, let alone weapon standards. See my many posts on Iran and enrichment: the difficulty of enrichment means having yellowcake is dramatically different from having, say, the chemicals to make explosives or poisons.

Note also "There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said." (from here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080706/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_yellowcake_mission) In other words, Saddam was contained after the first Gulf War. Sorry, this is still nothing like a smoking gun requiring immediate invasion.

[Woody]

Bravus. It is no use discussing this with you since you do not consider Fox News to be reliable. But in 2004 it was reported that 450 Bombs filled with Mustard Gas were found by our military in one particular search. Actually I remember it being reported on the news at that time. But since then it has been largely over-looked. They actually showed some of the bombs on the news account. Since you don't like Fox ... you can close your ears to this.

[John317]

It's a fact, though, that President Clinton and many others said that they believed that Iraq had WMD and that military action might be necessary. Every major intelligence service said they believed Iraq had WMD.

Here's one story about the discovery of sarin and mustard gas being found in Iraq:

Sarin, Mustard Gas Discovered Separately in Iraq

Monday, May 17, 2004

BAGHDAD, Iraq — A roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent (search) recently exploded near a U.S. military convoy, the U.S. military said Monday.

Bush administration officials told Fox News that mustard gas (search) was also recently discovered.

Two people were treated for "minor exposure" after the sarin incident but no serious injuries were reported. Soldiers transporting the shell for inspection suffered symptoms consistent with low-level chemical exposure, which is what led to the discovery, a U.S. official told Fox News.

"The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (search), the chief military spokesman in Iraq, told reporters in Baghdad. "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy."

The round detonated before it would be rendered inoperable, Kimmitt said, which caused a "very small dispersal of agent."

However, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the results were from a field test, which can be imperfect, and said more analysis was needed. If confirmed, it would be the first finding of a banned weapon upon which the United States based its case for war.

A senior Bush administration official told Fox News that the sarin gas shell is the second chemical weapon discovered recently.

Two weeks ago, U.S. military units discovered mustard gas that was used as part of an IED. Tests conducted by the Iraqi Survey Group (search) — a U.S. organization searching for weapons of mass destruction — and others concluded the mustard gas was "stored improperly," which made the gas "ineffective."

They believe the mustard gas shell may have been one of 550 projectiles for which former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein failed to account when he made his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began last year. Iraq also failed to then account for 450 aerial bombs with mustard gas. That, combined with the shells, totaled about 80 tons of unaccounted for mustard gas.

It also appears some top Pentagon officials were surprised by the sarin news; they thought the matter was classified, administration officials told Fox News.

An official at the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) headquarters in New York said the commission is surprised to hear news of the mustard gas.

"If that's the case, why didn't they announce it earlier?" the official asked.

The UNMOVIC official said the group needs to know more from the Bush administration before it's possible to determine if this is "old or new stuff. It is known that Iraq used sarin during the Iraq-Iran war, however.

Kimmitt said the shell belonged to a class of ordnance that Saddam's government said was destroyed before the 1991 Gulf war (search). Experts believe both the sarin and mustard gas weapons date back to that time.

"It was a weapon that we believe was stocked from the ex-regime time and it had been thought to be an ordinary artillery shell set up to explode like an ordinary IED and basically from the detection of that and when it exploded, it indicated that it actually had some sarin in it," Kimmitt said.

The incident occurred "a couple of days ago," he added. The discovery reportedly occurred near Baghdad International Airport.

Washington officials say the significance of the find is that some chemical shells do still exist in Iraq, and it's thought that fighters there may be upping their attacks on U.S. forces by using such weapons.

The round was an old "binary-type" shell in which two chemicals held in separate sections are mixed after firing to produce sarin, Kimmitt said.

He said he believed that insurgents who rigged the artillery shell as a bomb didn't know it contained the nerve agent, and that the dispersal of the nerve agent from such a rigged device was very limited.

The shell had no markings. It appears the binary sarin agents didn't mix, which is why there weren't serious injuries from the initial explosion, a U.S. official told Fox News.

"Everybody knew Saddam had chemical weapons, the question was, where did they go. Unfortunately, everybody jumped on the offramp and said 'well, because we didn't find them, he didn't have them,'" said Fox News military analyst Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney.

"I doubt if it's the tip of the iceberg but it does confirm what we've known ... that he [saddam] had weapons of mass destruction that he used on his own people," Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, told Fox News. "This does show that the fear we had is very real. Now whether there is much more of this we don't know, Iraq is the size of the state of California."

But there were more reasons than weapons to get rid of Saddam, he added. "We considered Saddam Hussein a threat not just because of weapons of mass destruction," Grassley said.

Iraqi Scientist: You Will Find More

Gazi George, a former Iraqi nuclear scientist under Saddam's regime, told Fox News he believes many similar weapons stockpiled by the former regime were either buried underground or transported to Syria. He noted that the airport where the device was detonated is on the way to Baghdad from the Syrian border.

George said the finding likely will be the first in a series of discoveries of such weapons.

"Saddam is the type who will not store those materials in a military warehouse. He's gonna store them either underground, or, as I said, lots of them have gone west to Syria and are being brought back with the insurgencies," George told Fox News. "It is difficult to look in areas that are not obvious to the military's eyes.

"I'm sure they're going to find more once time passes," he continued, saying one year is not enough for the survey group or the military to find the weapons.

Saddam, when he was in power, had declared that he did in fact possess mustard-gas filled artilleries but none that included sarin.

"I think what we found today, the sarin in some ways, although it's a nerve gas, it's a lucky situation sarin detonated in the way it did ... it's not as dangerous as the cocktails Saddam used to make, mixing blister" agents with other gases and substances, George said.

Officials: Discovery Is 'Significant'

U.S. officials told Fox News that the shell discovery is a "significant" event.

Artillery shells of the 155-mm size are as big as it gets when it comes to the ordnance lobbed by infantry-based artillery units. The 155 howitzer can launch high capacity shells over several miles; current models used by the United States can fire shells as far as 14 miles. One official told Fox News that a conventional 155-mm shell could hold as much as "two to five" liters of sarin, which is capable of killing thousands of people under the right conditions in highly populated areas.

The Iraqis were very capable of producing such shells in the 1980s but it's not as clear that they continued after the first Gulf War.

In 1995, Japan's Aum Shinrikyo (search) cult unleashed sarin gas in Tokyo's subways, killing 12 people and sickening thousands. In February of this year, Japanese courts convicted the cult's former leader, Shoko Asahara, and sentence him to be executed.

Developed in the mid-1930s by Nazi scientists, a single drop of sarin can cause quick, agonizing choking death. There are no known instances of the Nazis actually using the gas.

Nerve gases work by inhibiting key enzymes in the nervous system, blocking their transmission. Small exposures can be treated with antidotes, if administered quickly.

Antidotes to nerve gases similar to sarin are so effective that top poison gas researchers predict they eventually will cease to be a war threat.

Fox News' Wendell Goler, Steve Harrigan, Ian McCaleb, Liza Porteus, James Rosen and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[John317]

Before US Invaded Iraq:

Mrs. Clinton said:October 10, 2002

Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of

United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

......While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.

Many Others on WMD in Iraq: http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Bill Clinton: http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040109015020.8ivyabdw.html

Clinton believes Iraq had weapons of mass destruction: Portugal PM

LISBON (AFP) Jan 09, 2004

Former US president Bill Clinton said in October during a visit to Portugal that he was convinced Iraq had weapons of mass destruction up until the fall of Saddam Hussein, Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso said late Thursday.

"When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime," he said in an interview with Portuguese cable news channel SIC Noticias.

[jasd]

But...

Canada! Yellowcake uranium to be used for nuclear reactors in Canada!? Like, ain’t the place s’posed tah be, umm, GREEN?

Anyway, didn’t we find almost two tons of Saddam’s enriched uranium. Mebbe, he’d taken a page from us and had outsourced his yellowcake?

Disabuse me should I err, but can’t a dirty bomb be made with either low-enriched or highly-enriched uranium? If so, I would consider damage done by a dirty bomb to be as destructive as a Hiroshima-type bomb. I mean,

5 years after ground zero, one visiting Hiroshima had difficulty encountering evidence of a nuclear blast; whereas, a highly radioactive debris field would have persisted for much longer...

The above said, it’s puzzling that we left that uranium ‘in country’ with Saddam - with him, undoubtedly - awaiting the lifting of sanctions.

>>Sorry, this is still nothing like a smoking gun requiring immediate invasion.<<

I don’t think we needed a smoking gun to invade Iraq. Saddam was aggressively flouting the 1991 terms of surrender. We didn’t need a smoking gun to enforce compliance.

[Woody]

Quote:

I don’t think we needed a smoking gun to invade Iraq. Saddam was aggressively flouting the 1991 terms of surrender. We didn’t need a smoking gun to enforce compliance.

Exactly .....

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Sorry, this is still nothing like a smoking gun requiring immediate invasion.

It isn't a smoking gun which is why it wasn' touted. Plus the Bush Administration has done a terrible job of defending itself because they are 'above that'.

No doubt there was bad intelligence that led to the invasion. But again... Saddam was ultimately responsible for the bad intelligence. He was the one playing games. He claimed to have destroyed the same pre-1991 chemical weapons that we found.

[Bravus]

Yellowcake is not radioactive enough to make a 'dirty bomb', as I think the original article noted.

[jasd]

>>Yellowcake is not radioactive enough to make a 'dirty bomb',<<

Disabuse me should I err, but can’t a dirty bomb be made with either low-enriched or highly-enriched uranium?