-The fall of the Saddam statue (April 9, 2003)

Iraqis finally have control of their own destiny.

-The end of major combat operations (May 2, 2003)

'Mission Accomplished' - surprisingly enough, Bush was right. The Iraq insurgency ended right there and then.

-Operation Peninsula Strike (June 9-12, 2003)

The first big postwar raid netted 400 arrests. Fox News breathlessly reported on this 'crushing blow' to the insurgents. And they were right to do it - it killed the insurgency.

-Operation Desert Scorpion (June 15-29)

If Peninsula Strike didn't get them all, surely operations Sidewinder, Scorpion Sting, and Spartan Scorpion would, right? Operation Rifles Scorpion pacified Fallujah.

-The death of Uday and Qusay Hussein (July 22, 2003)

The insurgency died along with these two evil dudes, who organized the whole insurgency.

-The end of the 'long, hot summer' (September 2003)

People were only insurging because they were hot and bored. Combined with Operation Tiger Clean Sweep, the insurgency was brought to a decisive end.

-The capture of Saddam (December 15, 2003)

This will end the insurgency for damn sure.

-The 'containment' of al-Sadr's propaganda machine (March 28, 2004)

al-Sadr's inciteful newspaper al-Hawaz was shut down, thus ending the insurgency.

-The second pacification of Fallujah (April 2004)

With peace secured in Fallujah, the insurgency withered up and died.

-Pacification of the Sadr militia (April 2004)

Now Sadr has been pacified for sure. So has the insurgency.

-The transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqi interim government (June 28, 2004)

People were only insurging because the government wasn't Iraqi.

-The second pacification of the Sadr militia (August 2004)

The first time was just a trial run. Now America got serious, and the insurgency ended.

-The end of the second long, hot summer (September 2004)

If at first you don't succeed...

-The pacification of Samarra (October 1-3, 2004)

Operation Baton Rouge scared the insurgents straight once and for all.

-The third pacification of Fallujah (November 2004)

Every insurgent in Iraq died in this battle.

-The Iraqi election (January 30, 2005)

Once Iraq got control of its government, the insurgents basically just disbanded.

-The formation of the newly-elected Iraqi government (April 3-7, 2005)

Now that all the government posts are filled, there is no reason to insurge.

-Operation Matador (May 7-15, 2005)

Turns out the real problem was the Syrian border. Glad we got that straightened out.

-Operation Lightning (May 23-29, 2005)

Along with Operation Squeeze Play, the new Iraqi Army uprooted all the insurgents from Baghdad - random acts of kindness replaced mortars and carbombs.

-Operation Restoring Rights (August 26-October 29, 2005)

Once we gave the people of Tal Afar their rights back, what need was there for an insurgency?

-The end of the third long, hot summer (September 2005)

Global warming made this one pretty bad. But then all the insurgents melted along with the winter rains.

-Operation Iron Fist (October 1-6, 2005)

Holy shit! With a name like Iron Fist, how can you NOT crush the insurgency? We did, and the earth laughs in flowers.

-Iraqi Constitutional referendum (October 15, 2005)

The problem was that Iraqis didn't have their own constitution. Without one of those, of COURSE you'll have insurgency. But not anymore - the referendum passed; the insurgents passed away.

-The trial of Saddam (October 19, 2005)

The insurgency happened because Saddam needs a trial. Once the proceedings began, people relaxed. What insurgency?

-Operation Steel Curtain (November 10-?, 2005)

The insurgents actually came from several little river towns near Syria. Their destruction gave America a startling Thanksgiving present - the end of combat operations in Iraq.

-Death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (November 20, 2005)

The insurgency was like a Jenga tower - yank out the right plank, and the whole thing topples. Zarqawi was the plank. Visit Baghdad.

In conclusion: We win!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2872645)

But the public grows increasingly skeptical, and, right or wrong policy-wise, that's going to exert increasing pressure on law makers to get us the fuck out of Iraq.

To those who suggest that comparisons to Vietnam are phony and intellectually dishonest, I disagree. In fact, Iraq is far more consequential than Vietnam, since our invasion announces an aggressive new doctrine rather than exists as a small piece of an otherwise prudent doctrine (containment of communism).

Whatever the ultimate consequences of our (it turns out, ill-founded) attack, you'd have to be an idiot to think this administration has carried out occupation with sufficient effectiveness and moral authority to serve as the foundation to realizing neo-con fantasies about reforming the Middle East. Rumsfeld and intelligence chiefs should have long since been fired. Yet the bumbling administration leaders aim their guns at Newsweek.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2872768)

draft.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2872921)

-For pro-war military analysis-

The Belmont Club:

http://www.fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/

-For more critical analysis-

Phil Carter's Intel Dump:

http://philcarter.blogspot.com/

For everything else:

http://www.wordsfromiraq.com

Click through the sidelinks. Kurdo's World and Star from Mosul especially.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2878148)

It's also notable that the above poster said nothing to rebut Petro's OP.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2873038)

There is no point in rebutting anything in petro's OP. Most of it is correct.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2876738)

I don't mind being in the minority right now, for various reasons.

This past week hardly suggests irrelevance, however.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2872910)

nobody who knows anything - i.e. not fox news, ny times, other propaganda - thinks that pacifying iraq is our primary objective.

so your argument is strong, petro, and your argument is good - but it's an argument against the ignorant.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2876604)

we're really fucked, though, if there's a revolution in saudi arabia.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2876681)

that's unlikely in the foreseeable future. AQ hates the royal family. Many people are not happy with the royal family. The royal family even has its own army and police that are separate from the national police and army. so, why doesn't AQ attack the royal family? The answer is simple: AQ won't do it because an attack on the royal family would still be hugely unpopular.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2876706)

I wonder why we didnt just invade SA. They have far more oil than does Iraq.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2876755)

It's not like Saddam was holding out on us.

And now that WE manage the oil, we have to deal with this shit:

http://www.iags.org/iraqpipelinewatch.htm

Furthermore, we are LOSING the war against IEDs:

http://icasualties.org/oif/IED.aspx

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2878095)

However, before we can 'leave with honor,' we ARE going to have to bring the insurgency down to a much lower level, one which the new Iraqi security forces can manage. Otherwise, we will be repeating Israel's experience in its 2000 Lebanon withdrawl - which is to say, handing the insurgents a decisive victory.

Our goal was to conquer Iraq in a couple months and then have a large strategic footprint from which to pressure Iran, Syria, etc.

Instead, that has been turned on its head. Those nations are no longer afriad of US ground intervention as long as US forces are mired in Iraq. They have successfully shown their own populations that the price of democracy may be unbearable.

That's too bad, since Afghanistan is doing a lot better.

Any victory in Iraq now will be seen as one snatched from the jaws of defeat.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2878165)

when this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4287300/) happens, all hell is going to break loose.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2878189)

The main problem is that Iraq isn't even a very important war. It's just a distraction in a sandbox, when the real action will take place in PACOM's domain.

That being said, if there actually is a severe oil crisis, I will do my part by molotoving as many SUVs as I can find.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2878204)

yes, there actually is going to be a severe oil crisis, probably within a year. look into it.

lifeaftertheoilcrash.net

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2878217)

Once China begins deploying thier deisel subs, we will have a lot more on our hands in that theater.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2878221)

i don't think we're going to go to war over the south china sea, and japan can take care of itself.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2878247)

B. if we open up more oil wells and we don't get the profits from it, this brings down the cost of oil. It would hurt our companies.

C. if this isn't a move by Bush and Cheney for their own personal gain, but just a war to improve the US position vis a vis oil - the entire GDP of Iraq, much less the benefits the country gets (and we would snatch) from drilling for oil, is a fraction of the cost of going to war.

D. I still haven't received my share of the loot yet. Who the f's welching on me?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2878648)

if you want to argue that, I'll buy the argument against Iraq.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2878457)

Go get yourself a Baghdad apartment, drive around, and live there like a normal person.

If it's as stable as West Germany was, this won't be a problem.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2878840)

That's why I find the idea of this as an insurgency against US troops hard to back up. If every soldier leaves tomorrow, that won't make them happy. If every soldier stayed, but the Baathists were put back in power, attacks would plummet.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2878863)

That means we can't reduce troop levels anytime soon.

That is not good news no matter how you look at it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2878870)

Which does nothing to change what I wrote - other Iraqis are getting attacked in far greater numbers than US soldiers are.

The Baathists don't like getting kicked out of power and losing the perks they got from it.

They don't like US soldiers there only to the extent that we keep them from intimidating everybody and coming back into power. The same was true for the werewolves.

If you want to call one a failure, you better prepared to say the same thing of another (at least until we stopped those terrorist attacks).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2878900)

Actually, though more Iraqis in total get killed, remember that there are only 138,000 US troops in Iraq.

If insurgents killed ordinary Iraqis at the same rate they killed US troops, they'd be killing 15,000 Iraqis per month instead of 800.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2878913)

Everybody on this board would consider Iraq a success if we made it as stable as W Germany in the 60s. Toss in a group that decides they can't get what they want without violence, though, and you have Baader Meinhof terrorizing everbody for a decade. Even with US troops stationed there.

If we're waiting just for the other side to give up and get demoralized/if we say that the only way they can lose is if they decide not to attack us - then we're using the same strategy we used in Vietnam and we'll get the same result.

Our goal isn't just to stop terrorist attacks, it's to keep the terrorists from getting what they want. The terrorists want the new government out of power. They want the Baathists back in control. If we stop that from happening, if free elections keep taking place, and it at least is stable enough that life in general around the country improves, then we win.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2879070)

No they didn't. How many people did they kill in their entire run? Probably fewer than die on a good day in Iraq.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2879098)

no clue

either way, I said terrorizing not killing 'em all. I'll stick with it.

I would match up werewolf numbers with Iraq, but the history of that has become so politicized in the past couple years I'm sure someone could find a site to argue whatever I include. The total was less, but it was a lot.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2879119)

We're talking about 800-1200 PER MONTH in Iraq.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2879124)

I think this doesn't fully encompass their objectives. There are those who would like to reestablish Sunni dominance, but probably more whose primary motivation is Iraqi nationalism/hatred of America and the west. I don't see much that would quell this motivation for insurgency, short of leaving.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2879129)

That's probably not true of all insurgents, either.

A lot of them just want to show that, even without a proper army, you can defeat America if you are persistent and trust in Allah.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2879149)

That might empower rather than quell them.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2879153)

>That's probably not true of all insurgents, either.

A lot of them just want to show that, even without a proper army, you can defeat America if you are persistent and trust in Allah.<

That’s the thing I mentioned-if it’s just hatred of the West, they ought to be doing this differently. People are obviously carrying out attacks for more than one reason, though.

It's a hunch of mine I'll never see a policy expert argue, but when you get away from the people who are ordering attacks and coordinating it and just focus on a lower class Iraqi who places a bomb somewhere - I'd be willing to bet the biggest motivating factor is money. They can receive a bounty which is a hell of lot of money considering the average Iraqi's income. The people carrying out these attacks can be completely indifferent to the goals. If you tossed all the political factors aside, but a few people who don't like the new government were still paying that bounty, you'll still get attacks.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2879196)

I think this was meant to be Afghanistan Part Deux. The plan was for the US military to come in from the south, through the port of Umm Qasr up into Basra toward Baghdad, then from the north from Turkey through Dohuk and Mosul down the now-notorious Tikrit Highway. With the help of the Kurds and anti-Saddam Shia, the plan was to quickly crumble the government then use Chalabi and other figures to help set up a new one that would become a stable democracy.

I think think the plan was shamefully naive.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2879280)

Very true. For example, when people were turning in their countrymen to the US military during the Afghanistan invasion, they weren't doing it out of some love for the US. It was for the cash rewards being offered for capture of Taliban members. This had its own effect of imprisoning many innocent goatherders in the shadowy constellation of prisons the CIA maintains worldwide.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2879212)