Maliki decided to launch the offensive without consulting his U.S. allies, according to administration officials.

Yes, it's just a coincidence that Darth Cheney was recently visiting. I'm sure that had nothing to do with this.

C'mon guys! This is good news! In fact, it is better than we could possibly have dreamed! The surge has worked spectacularly! This is just part of the plan!

As President Bush told an Ohio audience that Iraq was returning to "normalcy," administration officials in Washington held meetings to assess what appeared to be a rapidly deteriorating security situation in many parts of the country.

Finally! Iraq is back to hosting major sectarian battles. Back to normal, indeed!

Now we can go home, right?

And St. McCain doesn't care what anybody says!

jimBOB: Yes, it's just a coincidence that Darth Cheney was recently visiting. I'm sure that had nothing to do with this.

Yeah, that's hard to reconcile. Although I can imagine Cheney shouting "You Go Girl! [Democracy is for pussies]" as he rides away into the sunset.

I'd imagine Cheney's visit went more like this:

Maliki: Mr. Vice President, this is an unexpected pleasure. We are honored by your presence -
Cheney: You may dispense with the pleasantries, Minister. I'm here to put you back on schedule.
Maliki: I assure you, Mr. Cheney. My men are attacking as fast as they can.
Cheney: Perhaps I can find new ways to motivate them.
Maliki: I tell you, this country will be pacified as planned.
Cheney: The President does not share your optimistic appraisal of the situation.
Maliki: But, he asks the impossible. I need more men!
Cheney: Then perhaps you can tell him when talks to you direct.
Maliki: The President's coming here?
Cheney: Don't be silly, Prime Minister. He'll be on a satellite uplink. He is most displeased with your apparent lack of progress.
Maliki: We shall double our efforts!
Cheney: I hope so, Prime Minister, for your sake. The President is not as forgiving as I am.

Now I get while Maliki called his operation "The Charge Of Knights". It's the knight's move from chess - an attack from an unexpected direction.

By failing to commit enough forces to fight the Mahdi Army, his operation is certain to need rescuing if his government is not to fall in turn. The US cannot, with the best will in the world, commit more than a brigade or maybe three. That's way not enough to take on a force like the Mahdi Army in a city the size of basra through boots on the ground - and so firepower, bombs and shells will be pressed into service to do the work of the missing boots. Can we say "massive collateral damage?"

What better way not only to wreck the Sadrist's plans to reduce Maliki's SIIC allies to a minority power in the regional elections but also to drive a massive wedge between Sadr and Petreaus? The latter had been careful, of late, to refer to Sadr by the honorific "Seyed" and to credit his ceasefire with a large chunk of reductions in Iraqi violence. Maliki must have felt Mookie breathing down his neck from two directions.

As long as Maliki has the US to back him up, and power is more important to him than stability, this is a big gamble he cannot afford not to make. Sure, if he succeeds he gets a Sadrist insurrection. But that just means he can - delay the November elections in Sadrist areas indefinitely, citing the emergency and so prop up his SIIC allies and thus his own rule; count on US troops being around for a while as they won't be able to withdraw if there's more violence, rather than less, in coming months; put paid once and for all to any chance of reproachment between the US military and Sadr. On the minus side, there's a slim chance the Mahdi Army might mount a Hezboullah-style upset and a rather larger chance that the cat-herder, Sistani, might join with Iraqi parliamentarians who are already saying Maliki should heed Sadr's call for a negotiated settlement. If Sistani backs Sadr on this, Maliki is toast and so is his government, with Sadr garnering enough backing to become de-facto Iraqi leader almost overnight. But if he did nothing, that's going to happen anyway come November. Maliki doesn't have a choice if he wants to retain power.

But for the US, things look rather different. If they use massive firepower instead of boots, they'll incur the wrath of much of the Shiite South well beyond the Sadrists. It will be Anbar at its worst, writ large, and this time lying athwart the main route of supply. If they lose in battle to a Hezboullah-style resistance, same again.

And over the US' shoulder, there are several other problems all looking to come to a head at once. There's the increasingly disaffected Sunni Awakening, threatening a general strike or even a return to their insurgent ways in the face of Maliki's refusal to accomodate them (ironically, Sadr would be far more likely to conduct the outreach that needs). Then there's the Kurds and the brewing blood-feud over who owns Kirkuk. And finally, when the ground in the Northern mountains thaws in April and May, the Turks are looking to follow up their recent reconnaisance in force with a proper armored incursion on the hunt for PKK terrorists. There's a very real prospect here of chaotically and accidentally converging currents creating a perfect storm for the US occupation and for peace in Iraq.

Regards, C

No one could have foreseen that the current iteration of training the Iraqi security forces would work out about as well as all the previous iterations.

When they stand up, we shall stand down. Even if it takes one thousand years. Or, until the oil runs out. After that, fuck em, they don't vote Repiglican.

"Or, until the oil runs out."

This might be he wisest part of our policy. Under normal circumstances, Iraq's oil will run out in 40 years (or less). But because they're fighting over the oil instead of pumping it, it may last a lot longer. War may actually be the answer to Peak Oil. It doesn't actually solve the problem of insufficient oil, but it might delay when the peak occurs by preventing us from getting to the oil. And on the plus side for Exxon-Mobil investors, it keeps prices high by restricting supply. Consumers get screwed of course, but who cares about them? Oh yeah, that's us. Oops.

The foreign media is much more blunt about the clusterf*ck in Iraq. Click here for details. Regardless of the Republican propaganda, it is over, folks.

We have lost Iraq.

No one feels the pain of our military more than John Sidney McCain III. War is wretched.

Mr Sadr's followers believe the government is trying to eliminate them before elections in southern Iraq later this year, which they are expected to win.

Thanks for the link TCD. It looks like they are catching on quick to this democracy thing.

This is what happens when you have militia-based security and various groups vying for political power. Basra wasn't under the control of anyone other than some local goons with guns, and a failed attempt to try and oust them will surely lead to goons elsewhere thinking they too can have it their way. What a mess.

We just pushed the iraqis to have elections in october. This fighting is a prelude to that. why the administration wanted to encourage sectional competition before the november elections is beyond me. these guys are just clueless (note: these are the same folks who were surprised when hammas won an election).

note also: the wash post reports today the the Fed Reserve has not plan for what comes next after they stepped into the void by backstopping investment banks. How is this possible. is this a dream?

Petraeus can "plan" all he wants, the Iraqis aren't working with us anymore.

The only thing left for Americans to do is to die in a fight someone else picked. Maliki is using our troops like mercenaries, and he's not even paying the bill.
.

Oh, you're just not paying attention. George says everything's coming up roses in Iraq - 'course, it's "hard work"... but, still... and if nothing else, he's proven himself a leader whom we can trust, especially near the close of his administration.

I think he may be planning for new Mission Accomplished signage.

War may actually be the answer to Peak Oil.

Uh, in terms of production? Yes. But in terms of consumption, no.
.

It's not just a matter of competence. Consider the divided loyalties of many Shiite members of the Iraqi Army and Police.

Someone wrote:

War may actually be the answer to Peak Oil.

It seems that even when you've got the crack U.S. military on the case, wars produce problems for securing oil resources, like nikitias setting fire to wells, attacking pipelines, etc.

Stability, cooperation, growth of international law- those kinds of things, ensuring our interests through creating mutual, reciprocal needs, is what ensures our interests the best- not trying to conquer the whole damn world. Force should only be used in cases of exceptions.

like nikitias setting fire to wells, attacking pipelines, etc.

Crud, that was supposed to be 'militias' not 'nikitias'... Dang keyboard...

Perhaps we are over thinking this thing. The surge placated Baghdad and now the US/Maliki want to bring Sadr in line. Next up the Kurds in the north. After all, the US gov would not allow say, California, to have a large private military armed to the teeth with Arnolt at its helm flexing his sun baked biceps whenever he wanted more highway funds. The move on Sadr/Basra is intended to eliminate pretenders to the thrown before the election, plain and simple. And, support the war or not, it makes sense. Iraq has to stand united or she don't stand at all.

it looks like we've been drawn into this gang war

By gang leaders like W. Bush, Cheney, O'Hanlon and Pollock.

Someone in another thread brought up the fact that Cheney had just visited Iraq and then the next week the media has a theme that the new assaults on the Sadrists are all Malachi's idea and that the US is just helping the Iraqi government fight some armed gangs. Al Sadr's ceasefire brought too much stability to Iraq, which is contrary to the US occupation's policy, so he is being targeted.

Al Sadr is a legitimate popular leader of Iraqi Shiites. His nationalism and working class orientaton makes his leadership antithetical to the goals of the US occupation of Iraq. He and millions of Shiites are being targeted for elimination, and the US media, including moderate bloggers, calls the largest and poorest faction of the Iraqi population a gang.

"So how's the training of the Iraqi army coming along?"
_____________________

The insertion of US assets into the fight tells us nothing about the training of Iraqi forces. The conditions of an on-going fight will often dictate the use of capabilities beyond those of the initially engaged force. That happens when US forces are the only ones engaged, just as often as when the Iraqis are the lead element.

The snark you probably meant to use is, "So, how goes that Iraqi combat readiness?" That would be a more germaine slam, though undoubtedly still an unfair one. It is an advantage for us to have the less capable Iraqis initiate combat operations. The lighter Iraqi forces run into the enemy first, forcing the enemy to reveal their preparations and defenses. Once the battle begins to take shape, we develop a better view of the battlespace, which in turn allows us to more effectively target our superior assets against each schwerpunkt (hard point). It's an ancient tactic that is still very effective.

One of the many things we will need to do before withdrawing from Iraq is provide enough advanced weaponry and training to give the Iraqis the capability to finish fights without our aid (except, perhaps, fixed wing airpower). There will always be several tiers of capability in the Iraqi Army. The highest tier will serve our current role in such battles after we leave.

Not to worry. According to the geniuses at AEI and the Brookings Institution, the civil war in Iraq is over.

The first thing I want to say is that: The Civil War in Iraq is over. And until the American domestic political debate catches up with that fact, we are going to have a very hard time discussing Iraq on the basis of reality. -- Fred Kagan, Neo-con starlet.

The insertion of US assets into the fight tells us nothing about the training of Iraqi forces..... Bush chauffeur at 12:20 PM

I saw a report on CNN International last night about the fighting in Basra and almost every other word coming out of the propangada reporter's mouth (Waters) was Iran.

"The insertion of US assets into the fight tells us nothing about the training of Iraqi forces."

Well, sure, if you're a revisionist idiot incapable of actually learning.

"The conditions of an on-going fight will often dictate the use of capabilities beyond those of the initially engaged force."

No shit, Sherlock. But since the "we'll stand down as they stand up" doctrine depends on the Iraqi security forces having those very capabilities that they appear to currently lack, I'm afraid you don't have much of a point.

"The snark you probably meant to use is, 'So, how goes that Iraqi combat readiness?' That would be a more germaine slam, though undoubtedly still an unfair one."

Since it's just another way of asking the same question, I'm afraid that, as usual, you don't have a point.

"It is an advantage for us to have the less capable Iraqis initiate combat operations."

ROFL.... Particularly when they fail to consult us. And heaven knows it does so much for their morale to have to be bailed out, not to mention when their comrades take off their uniforms and join the other side. Advantages, all. How could I not see that?

"It's an ancient tactic that is still very effective."

Why yes, just look at how effective it has been over the past five years.

"One of the many things we will need to do before withdrawing from Iraq is provide enough advanced weaponry and training to give the Iraqis the capability to finish fights without our aid (except, perhaps, fixed wing airpower)."

Dear heart, we've needed to do that for the past five years. We have failed to do so for the quite reasonable view that these weapons will end up being used in the civil war and used against us. Hence, it's not going to happen.

"There will always be several tiers of capability in the Iraqi Army. The highest tier will serve our current role in such battles after we leave."

Uh-huh. We've been hearing that for five years. I'm sure that this time it will come true. And then there will be magical ponies for all!

It is an advantage for us to have the less capable Iraqis initiate combat operations. The lighter Iraqi forces run into the enemy first, forcing the enemy to reveal their preparations and defenses. Once the battle begins to take shape, we develop a better view of the battlespace, which in turn allows us to more effectively target our superior assets against each schwerpunkt (hard point).

Of course, the idiot trashauler gets this wrong as usual, since having the Iraqi Army start the fight was not our deliberate strategy. We only got pulled into this to back them up once they engaged in combat without warning us and then proved unable to finish the job. But even if it was true, don't you think the Iraqis would object to being used essentially as bait to sacrifice their lives for the sake of the Americans?

"Er, if the mighty American trained Iraq army cannot defeat a militia, it says a great deal about the success of the training mission: it's another miserable failure."
_________________

Of course, it would say a great deal if it were true. The fact that we've reinforced the Iraqis in the fight doesn't necessarily mean they were incapable of winning on their own. Our pitching in might have been planned all along or, what is more likely, it's been judged that our help will enable the Iraqi forces to win more quickly, with fewer casualties. It's all one fight and there is little use in not using all the assets available to us. In the military perspective, helping our Iraqi allies to avoid casualties and kill the enemy is not a weakness, it merely makes sense.

The tendency to judge the state of any war based on a particular fight or situation is the martial equivalent of citing a change in the weather as proof of actual climate change. Such things are only pertinent when viewed in the aggregate, as part of the prevailing trends.

Trashhauler, spoken like a true representative of the Party. The Politburo would be proud.

Funny that for all their vaunted training and arming the Iraqi Army can't defeat a bunch of rag-tag, poverty-stricken Shia living in slums. I'd say that is some piss-poor combat readiness there.

I find it hilarious how in your world it's all part of the plan and is not a subject of legitimate criticism of this endeavor.

trashhauler: "doesn't necessarily mean" "might have been planned" "likely"

Your conviction and analysis are underwhelming, but your trolling - spot on.

"I find it hilarious how in your world it's all part of the plan and is not a subject of legitimate criticism of this endeavor."
______________________

I find it equally hilarious that folks can discern so much about the state of Iraqi readiness from an incomplete account of a single fight. The primary sources for the Washington Post story seem to be an anonymous Administraton source who may or may not know anything, a local stringer who saw a platoon of Strykers in action, and some quotes from Mahdi sources. The most we'll get from those sources is an incomplete picture of what's going on. How much disinformation is in this account is anyone's guess. What will actually mean something is who is in a stronger position in Basra a month from now, not the state of the fight today.

Of course, if the Iraqi government eventually succeeds in reclaiming Basra, most of you will quickly drop it from conversation here.

"I find it equally hilarious that folks can discern so much about the state of Iraqi readiness from an incomplete account of a single fight."

Dear heart, what makes you think we're relying on "an incomplete account of a single fight?" There are far more sources out there than The Washington Post, and there is more than one fight going on in Iraq at this time.

"Of course, if the Iraqi government eventually succeeds in reclaiming Basra, most of you will quickly drop it from conversation here."

Not really. Of course the U.S. will "succeed" in Basra, just as it "succeeded" in Fallujah and "succeeded" in Mosul and "succeeded" everywhere else they've played Whack-a-Mole. They're "succeeding" in every battle and they are simultaneouly losing the war. Nothing in the current conflict contradicts that view, just as a "victory" in Basra does not contradict that view.

"Of course, the idiot trashauler gets this wrong as usual, since having the Iraqi Army start the fight was not our deliberate strategy."
_____________________

Yep, I'm very often wrong about specifics. However, I do try to accurately state things from a military viewpoint.

I sometimes even get things right. Tell me this, oh wise one, how did it happen, if this fight in Basra was started without our knowledge, that we happen to have elements of the Stryker Brigade close by? The rest of the Brigade is still deployed in and around Bagdad.

"The fact that we've reinforced the Iraqis in the fight doesn't necessarily mean they were incapable of winning on their own."

Based on the other information available at this time, yes, actually it does.

"Our pitching in might have been planned all along"

Dear heart, what part of "Maliki did this without consulting the U.S." are you having trouble understanding?

"or, what is more likely, it's been judged that our help will enable the Iraqi forces to win more quickly, with fewer casualties."

Uh-huh, because that's the way it's always worked against the Mahdi Army....

"It's all one fight and there is little use in not using all the assets available to us."

Whose fight is it, dear? Whom are we fighting? And why?

"Yep, I'm very often wrong about specifics."

LOL... The first truly accurate statement that dear little Trashy has made in months.

Of course, if the Iraqi government eventually succeeds in reclaiming Basra, most of you will quickly drop it from conversation here.

Er, no. With U.S. military assistance the "Iraqi gov't" will certainly regain Basra. That tells us nothing about Iraqi combat readiness.

Even single fight over the past few years where they've a) needed U.S. assistance, or b) just not shown up - tells us everything we need to know.

I have posted literally dozens of comments from U.S. troops and officers training Iraqis over the years, and they were negative to a one, ranging from "abysmal" to "I don't trust them not to kill us." You casually dismiss them all as meaningless because in wingnut world we can't ever really know anything, and something always "might" be something else if it looks bad for the tribe, and if you throw in a few military acronyms and condescend maybe you'll look like an authority and it will distract from all the fluff you're throwing up.

As for things we don't speak of anymore; WMD's, bin Laden, Chalabi, cake walks, wars that pay for themselves, victory that's just around the corner, a booming economy, and the CEO President.

You wanna compare score cards on who's been right about what, by all means.

"Dear heart, what makes you think we're relying on "an incomplete account of a single fight?" There are far more sources out there than The Washington Post, and there is more than one fight going on in Iraq at this time."
__________________

Yep, there are many other sources out there. How many of them are based on the same sort of shaky information? It's a sure bet those sources have no access to the real combat reports.

I don't claim to know how well the fight is going in Basra. However, I know enough not to make sweeping claims based on fragmentary accounts.

"LOL... The first truly accurate statement that dear little Trashy has made in months."
_______________

Paul, I suspect most people here already know your viewpoint. I merely seek to inject some perspective from a strictly military viewpoint. Anyone who does not use any qualifiers to moderate their opinions about complex subjects is a peawit.

Of course, if the Iraqi government eventually succeeds in reclaiming Basra, most of you will quickly drop it from conversation here.

If the Iraqi government eventually succeeds in reclaiming Basra by itself without any assistance from the US military, then yeah.

I sometimes even get things right. Tell me this, oh wise one, how did it happen, if this fight in Basra was started without our knowledge, that we happen to have elements of the Stryker Brigade close by? The rest of the Brigade is still deployed in and around Bagdad.

The Stryker Brigade is in action in Sadr City, which is a neigborhood in...wait for it...Baghdad. As in Baghdad, not Basra. From the article cited:

Four U.S. Stryker armored vehicles were seen in Sadr City by a Washington Post correspondent, one of them engaging Mahdi Army militiamen with heavy fire....Several Mahdi Army commanders said they had been fighting U.S. forces for the past three days in Sadr City, engaging Humvees as well as the Strykers.

"I have posted literally dozens of comments from U.S. troops and officers training Iraqis over the years, and they were negative to a one, ranging from "abysmal" to "I don't trust them not to kill us." You casually dismiss them all as meaningless because in wingnut world we can't ever really know anything...."
______________________

Perhaps more correctly stated, all the ones you've chosen to post were uniformly negative. No one can claim to know the opinion of every single soldier.

Equally, I have never "casually dismissed" any of the negative comments from our soldiers regarding the Iraqi military. I've heard quite a few myself and the stories generally conform my own experiences with Middle Eastern militaries. Israelis aside, none of 'em come close to our own capabilities, nor are ever likely to. Luckily, the Iraqi military doesn't have to be able to defeat our military. They simply have to be better than their enemies. Time will tell if they are.

However, I do know, as you certainly do if you've studied much military history, that the soldiers of superior armies have always been contemptuous of their local, less well-trained allies. Such stories make for good bar talk and even, when properly dissected, help us improve our training procedures. Most commanders I know listen carefully to their troops. In fact, there are even metrics for getting such input.

I don't know anyone who claims you "can't ever know anything." I only take your posts as I find them.

"The Stryker Brigade is in action in Sadr City, which is a neigborhood in...wait for it...Baghdad. As in Baghdad, not Basra."
_________________

Good catch. My error.

Nice catch, Stefan.

And then there's this:

The primary sources for the Washington Post story seem to be an anonymous Administraton source who may or may not know anything, a local stringer who saw a platoon of Strykers in action, and some quotes from Mahdi sources. The most we'll get from those sources is an incomplete picture of what's going on.

How about this source:

Defence Minister Abdel Qader Jassim said the security forces had been caught off-guard by the scale of the militiamen's fight-back. "We were surprised by this resistance and have been obliged to change our plans and our tactics," he was quoted as saying by Reuters news agency.

Or this one:

Abu Iman barely flinched when the Iraqi Government ordered his unit of special police to move against al-Mahdi Army fighters in Basra.

His response, while swift, was not what British and US military trainers who have spent the past five years schooling the Iraqi security forces would have hoped for. He and 15 of his comrades took off their uniforms, kept their government-issued rifles and went over to the other side without a second thought.

Whoopsie! Looks like this all wasn't part of the plan after all. And that Iraqi training has had some unexpected results - maybe even confirmed the suspicions of the trainers I posted and revealed them not to be the ordinary grumblers you characterized them as.

Despite Trashhauler's "laying it all out on the floor" effort in his original comment to make Kevin sound like an idiot, the fact remains that the Iraqi forces aren't ready to do much by themselves, and that point isn't diluted at all by any amount of word-parsing with some military lingo sprinkled over it.

I find it equally hilarious that folks can discern so much about the state of Iraqi readiness from an incomplete account of a single fight. The primary sources for the Washington Post story seem to be an anonymous Administraton source who may or may not know anything, a local stringer who saw a platoon of Strykers in action, and some quotes from Mahdi sources. The most we'll get from those sources is an incomplete picture of what's going on. How much disinformation is in this account is anyone's guess. What will actually mean something is who is in a stronger position in Basra a month from now, not the state of the fight today.

This may be Trashhauler's "Waterloo" or, more succinctly, the most blatant attempt yet by an idiot to carry water for an administration that is so inept, so far out of it's depth and so completely misguided in what it's trying to do that it should be impeached immediately on the grounds of incompetence.

-So is the Surge now a failure? Of course it is.

-Is the Iraqi Civil War in a new phase, where the Shia are now going to fight it out? Of course it is.

-Was the Surge strategy just a failed attempt at staving off disaster that cost us over 900 dead Americans? Of course it is.

-Did all of those Americans have to die? Of course not. Had we begun withdrawing our forces, many of them would likely still be alive.

Each and every time someone tries to "carry water" for the Republican Party, all I can say is, wow. In the face of overwhelming and incontrovertable evidence that this war has destroyed our military's ability to fight in a sustained conflict or defend this country from other threats, yet another deluded wingnut tries to nitpick at the pebbles that lie at the foot of the mountain with the hopes of convincing people that the mountain ain't there.

Swan, you're out of your depth and out of your lane.

Shut the fuck up and go somewhere else.

Good catch. My error.

Yes. Particularly embarrassing error when mockingly calling someone else "oh wise one" and claiming that "I sometimes even get things right." Ouch!

Also not especially good when used to support the false claim that because Strykers were supposedly in Basra that that was a sign that this fight did not in fact take us by surprise.

"This may be Trashhauler's "Waterloo" or, more succinctly, the most blatant attempt yet by an idiot to carry water for an administration that is so inept, so far out of it's depth and so completely misguided in what it's trying to do that it should be impeached immediately on the grounds of incompetence."
___________________

Oh, nonsense. Nothing I wrote was carrying water for anyone, much less the Administration. The question of whether or not the Iraqi Army is trained and capable cannot be answered by the results of a half-fought battle. That was my point and it hasn't been refuted, merely ignored.

Training and military competence must be considered according to a relative scale, against one's enemy, not one's allies. But all the gleeful cries of failure here don't mean a thing against success on the ground. And that can only be determined in the long term, not by citing individual failures.

"Particularly embarrassing error when mockingly calling someone else "oh wise one" and claiming that 'I sometimes even get things right.' Ouch!"
____________________

Ain't it the truth! That's what comes from writing hurriedly and without double checking things. Well, humility is a useful virtue and this shows I should exercise more of it.

Since the Stryker comment did not refer to Basra, then the cited Washington Post article actually has even less to say about that battle than I first thought.

Oh, nonsense. Nothing I wrote was carrying water for anyone, much less the Administration. The question of whether or not the Iraqi Army is trained and capable cannot be answered by the results of a half-fought battle. That was my point and it hasn't been refuted, merely ignored.

Did you spill some of it on you?

The Iraqi Army is not trained, not ready to fight, has demonstrated that it cannot handle any kind of concentrated fight above the level of the one to three battalions that it has that have met the threshhold of fighting on their own over the last two years, and is seriously in need of being torn down and built up all over again.

The combined efforts of Petraeus, Dempsey and a few other generals and colonels has resulted in a debacle. For US troops to have to continually back the Iraqis no matter where the fight is is ludicrous. Either they can or they cannot fight. Every time they try to fight, they get their ass handed to them and we have to bail them out.

In comparison, at least the ARVN and the ROKs could hold ground. The quickest way to get yourself an Iraqi police uniform, some guns, and a new vehicle in Iraq is to knock on the door of a police station and wait for the cops to run out the back. In comparison, the ARVN and the ROKs could at least stand and fight and in some cases hold their own--it wasn't all horror stories.

Training and military competence must be considered according to a relative scale, against one's enemy, not one's allies. But all the gleeful cries of failure here don't mean a thing against success on the ground. And that can only be determined in the long term, not by citing individual failures.

Four years after we began serious training efforts, they should have NCOs and Officers who can lead small units. They don't have that. Four years into this, there should be a corps of about 120,000 men who can fight on their own. Try 2,000 on a good day when everyone shows up.

Where did all of the weapons go? Apparently, the equipment we were supposed to give the Iraqi police was sold or given to the Mahdi Army.

Now, when are you going to wake up? The weapons that are killing Americans were bought by American taxpayers (sometimes from club-hopping trash in Miami Beach, if you know THAT story) and handed to the Iraqis so that they could defend themselves.

It's a complete and utter debacle on any scale, and you should cowboy up and say "enough is enough, the Bush administration needs to take the blame for this."

Instead, it's the same old song and dance from the pied piper who sings the song of let's be patient and wait for the long term and it's too soon to tell and it might turn around and one small battle doesn't mean anything and yadda yadda yadda...

It's been FIVE years since the invasion and at least FOUR years since we put our backs into training these clowns. Wake up--they're not going to be in any better shape ten years from now. They just can't cut it.

Trashhauler: But all the gleeful cries of failure here don't mean a thing against success on the ground. And that can only be determined in the long term, not by citing individual failures.

Basra (and now other areas) seems to be a test of "success on the ground" as we speak. The ISF either has what it takes to secure Basra--and do so in relatively short order--or they don't. This isn't something that should require years to prove.

And as worrisome as the readiness of the troops should be the national command authority's readiness to effectively use those troops. Maliki's up-close-and-personal approach doesn't engender confidence.

But all the gleeful cries of failure here don't mean a thing against success on the ground. And that can only be determined in the long term, not by citing individual failures.

LOL... "Gleeful cries of failure"?? Yes, Trashy, you are carrying water; it's rather foolish to pretend otherwise.

In any case, we've had five years of this, Trashy. That's "long term" enough to reach certain conclusions, at least to those of us still capable of dealing with reality. Let us know when you want to join us.

"Paul, I suspect most people here already know your viewpoint."

Yes, dear, just as they know yours. Guess which one of us has been more accurate over the past few years?

"I merely seek to inject some perspective from a strictly military viewpoint.M"

No, dear, you don't, since you are clearly unqualified, not to mention ignorant. You are "injecting" nothing more than your own wishful thinking and personal bias. And the only person you're fooling is yourself.

"Anyone who does not use any qualifiers to moderate their opinions about complex subjects is a peawit."

ROFLMAO.... Oh, the irony....

Oh, and Trashy, dear, since it's quite obvious that you have not looked at other sources and that you know nothing of what's going on in Basra and elsewhere in Iraq (in light of the fact that several of the statements you're trying to "inject" into this debate are demonstrably, and stupidly, false), I'm afraid that all you're doing here is further destroying your reputation. Fine with me, of course, but when you're in over your head, most people would advise you to stop digging.

PaulB -- The "this dear", "that dear" "no, dear", "yes, dear" and "dear heart" schtick is getting really old and moldy.

If you have a point to make, you think you can make it without the lame sickening sweet saccharine sarcasm attempt which has become your hallmark? A hallmark which is long past its sell-buy date, and the stench of which overpowers any relevant contribution you might have to this discussion? Think you can manage that? Dear heart, asshole?

Trashauler -- I'd also note, per Pale Rider's comment...

Feb '08: the class of the newly-minted NCO academy

Jul '05: the class of the newly-minted NCO academy.

What's wrong with this picture?

"Think you can manage that? Dear heart, asshole?"

LOL.... Whatever you say, dear. I'm ever so touched that you care.

Serioud people I take seriously. Trashhauler isn't on that list.