War in Iraq is "over" - Obama (1 Viewer)

[greenroom]

it was his plan to get us out before the end of 2011...

His plan he adopted after Obama was hammering the campaign trail with it two years before the election and the people on both sides were eating it up.Before then there was "no timeline" and to have a timeline was "traitor talk". Or dont you guys even remember what actually transpired?

But I don't really wanna fight the absolute onslaught of the right-wing revisionist history. Buffoons.

Nearly 40,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq, all of whom will withdraw by Dec. 31 — a deadline set in a 2008 security agreement between Baghdad and Washington.

The time is what is important. Bush only did it to since it was becoming an election issue and was feeling pressure. .. Good thing we did not electe McCain.. We would never leave or it would of been 100 years!

 

[Leviathan]

Surprised that nobody hasn't brought up the point that the Obama administration was actually lobbying the Iraqi government to keep troops in Iraq past the deadline that was originally agreed to. This is not about Obama bringing the boys home. This is Iraq saying GTFO.

 

[timschochet]

Surprised that nobody hasn't brought up the point that the Obama administration was actually lobbying the Iraqi government to keep troops in Iraq past the deadline that was originally agreed to. This is not about Obama bringing the boys home. This is Iraq saying GTFO.

Exactly. Obama knows this is a mistake, but he has little choice, so he's trying to make the best out of a bad thing. Still, I think he should have been more forceful with the Iraqui government.

 

[Tribulation]

As someone who voted for Obama in 08, I'd like to hear someone unpack the statement that he is great at foreign policy. That has not been my impression.

Somali Pirates - deadOsama bin Laden - deadIraq War - doneThat's enough right there.

How have killing the Somali pirates and OBL helped us in terms of our foreign policy?Not saying they weren't the right thing to do, but ordering the killing of enemy combatants isn't exactly earth shattering in its policy gravitas.

Those moves showed that America is not to be trifled with. That's about the most important thing there is in terms of foreign policy no?

Um, the pirates are still trifling, are they not? Honestly, you've got a multinational effort in the Indian Ocean that goes well beyond even NATO given the involvement of the Russians and even the Chinese IIRC. This is like saying the police chief in a major city is doing a great job because they've done more DUI checkpoints in one corner of town. Obama's been better than I feared he might be, but this is one of the weaker arguments for him that you could throw out there. It's damning him with faint praise.

 

[greenroom]

Surprised that nobody hasn't brought up the point that the Obama administration was actually lobbying the Iraqi government to keep troops in Iraq past the deadline that was originally agreed to. This is not about Obama bringing the boys home. This is Iraq saying GTFO.

Or Obama wanted away to get out of Iraq. Instead of just pulling out to where the Republicans can say we are leaving early and when things go wrong (which they will). President Obama asked for something that he knew he would not be able to get by asking for the ANY U.S. military forces to stay would have to be shielded from prosecution or lawsuits. So while he does look bad on the surface he gets what he wants and that is when things go wrong in Iraq, (which is going to happen no matter how long we stay there) he can point that we offered to stay, but Iraq refused.

 

[Tribulation]

How have killing the Somali pirates and OBL helped us in terms of our foreign policy?

So going into Iraq was the right move, but taking out OBL isn't "helpful" in terms of foreign policy.And you poke fun at me for being biased?

Once again, I'm going to ask for you to explain how you feel that taking out OBL was helpful in foreign policy terms.

I just figured since it was so self evident that it'd be easy to explain...

Are you suggesting that it was harmful? Oh I get it, this is the new conservative defense on why Bush never found him. They realized that it would actually hurt our position and therefore we gave the guy that killed over 3K of our own people a free pass. Brilliant.

The killing of OBL is certainly emotionally satisfying and it's "justice done" (though I seem to recall ridicule of Bush's "evildoers" comments). It also has done some incremental harm - how much is uncertain - to al Qaeda, although al Qaeda was already reeling and fragmenting according to most reports. What's unclear to me is the fallout with Pakistan. Yes, business with Pakistan is the proverbial "deal with the devil", however it's essential to have their help to remain in Afghanistan, and if we lose them then we don't have any strong ally in South Asia, an area where both the Russians and Chinese do have relatively strong and ongoing alliances and are very interested in developing more. Think about that. Nobody with whom we can base troops or jointly train or rely upon to share intelligence, etc. We don't yet know what that means. And remember, Iran is in that neighborhood too, and given that we're exiting Iraq we will have no sustainable land presence to speak of in that part of the world. If we strengthen ties with India, which I suspect we will (I've often wondered why we haven't as their political system is far more like ours than is Pakistan's, and they're strongly anti-Islam and suspicious about Chinese expansion), maybe the loss of Pakistan as an ally will be ok. Maybe we won't lose Pakistan after it's all said and done and after they've waved their arms around enough to placate their own population about invasion of sovereignty, etc.The point of this is that it's premature to talk about OBL's killing being "worth it" as it's biggest effect was the positive PR that came from accomplishing "justice". This stuff is complex and I'm seeing people as usual retreating to dangerously pat and over-simplified answers about these issues.

 

[Tribulation]

Well, this thread got worthless in a hurry

There are good discussions to be had in here, and some are trying to have them.

 

[Tribulation]

NATO and Obama have done a much more cost effective method to rid Libya of Gaddhafi and have the Libyans on side and most importantly grateful.

Grateful? Like the Iraqi's? We don't have any clue what post-Gadafi Libya will look like, but it's even more overrun by tribal rivalries than is comparatively more modern and educated Iraq. The nasty truth about Middle East dictators is that they did and do result in social and political stability within the countries they rule, which by the way are located in the region which provides us with our primary energy supply for the time being. They also counter the militant Islamic fundamentalists and keep them fragmented and relatively weak. It's a fair question to ask whether we will have ended up gaining something out of Gadafi's downfall in Libya just as it is by posing the same question about Saddam and Iraq. This is real politik thinking.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

NATO and Obama have done a much more cost effective method to rid Libya of Gaddhafi and have the Libyans on side and most importantly grateful.

Grateful? Like the Iraqi's?

Almost nothing like Iraq and the Iraqi's.

 

[Tribulation]

NATO and Obama have done a much more cost effective method to rid Libya of Gaddhafi and have the Libyans on side and most importantly grateful.

Grateful? Like the Iraqi's?

Almost nothing like Iraq and the Iraqi's.

Really? Seriously?Please elaborate because I don't know how you can say that, especially at this early date.

 

[bueno]

It's time to start thinking about where Obama ranks amongst the greatest POTUS of all time with regards to national defense/foreign policy.Right after Washington, just above Reagan?

Somewhere just above Carter, and possibly Kennedy.He expanded the Afghan war.He entered a war in Libya that resulted in a state that will practice sharia law.Who knows how his Central African intervention will end? We started in Vietnam by sending in advisers.He managed to not bungle the time table set up by Bush.In the meantime, he is losing Pakistan to China.He ordered the assassination of an American citizen (the guy was a POS, but still).He bows to other heads of state.Getting Obama is a worthy accomplishment.And Gitmo is still open....

 

[Rayderr]

It's time to start thinking about where Obama ranks amongst the greatest POTUS of all time with regards to national defense/foreign policy.

Right after Washington, just above Reagan?

Somewhere just above Carter, and possibly Kennedy.He expanded the Afghan war.

He entered a war in Libya that resulted in a state that will practice sharia law.

Who knows how his Central African intervention will end? We started in Vietnam by sending in advisers.

He managed to not bungle the time table set up by Bush.

In the meantime, he is losing Pakistan to China.

He ordered the assassination of an American citizen (the guy was a POS, but still).

He bows to other heads of state.

Getting Obama is a worthy accomplishment.

And Gitmo is still open....

This one of those "Paul is Dead" situations?

 

[pantherclub]

I am not a huge Obama fan but I have to give him credit where it is due. The dude is money on Foreign Policy. Probably best President in my lifetime in that regards. Although his domestic stuff still gets a failing grade but that was pretty much what everyone thought going into this right?

 

[Jefferson the Caregiver]

In the meantime, he is losing Pakistan to China.

Pakistan was lost a long time ago and you know it as well as I do.

 

[Sarnoff]

Nine years of waste - both in human lies and > $1 Trillion - is finally officially over.

Obama's failed stiumuls cost more than 9 years of Iraq war

As President Obama prepares to tie a bow on U.S. combat operations in Iraq, Congressional Budget Office numbers show that the total cost of the eight-year war was less than the stimulus bill passed by the Democratic-led Congress in 2009.

According to CBO numbers in its Budget and Economic Outlook published this month, the cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom was $709 billion for military and related activities, including training of Iraqi forces and diplomatic operations.

The projected cost of the stimulus, which passed in February 2009, and is expected to have a shelf life of two years, was $862 billion.

The U.S. deficit for fiscal year 2010 is expected to be $1.3 trillion, according to CBO. That compares to a 2007 deficit of $160.7 billion and a 2008 deficit of $458.6 billion, according to data provided by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Nine years of waste - both in human lies and > $1 Trillion - is finally officially over.

Obama's failed stiumuls cost more than 9 years of Iraq war

As President Obama prepares to tie a bow on U.S. combat operations in Iraq, Congressional Budget Office numbers show that the total cost of the eight-year war was less than the stimulus bill passed by the Democratic-led Congress in 2009.

According to CBO numbers in its Budget and Economic Outlook published this month, the cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom was $709 billion for military and related activities, including training of Iraqi forces and diplomatic operations.

The projected cost of the stimulus, which passed in February 2009, and is expected to have a shelf life of two years, was $862 billion.

The U.S. deficit for fiscal year 2010 is expected to be $1.3 trillion, according to CBO. That compares to a 2007 deficit of $160.7 billion and a 2008 deficit of $458.6 billion, according to data provided by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget.

The $260B+ in tax cuts were "wasted"? Whether the other spending was a waste is certainly debatable, but I'm surprised to hear you arguing that tax cuts were a waste.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

The $260B+ in tax cuts were "wasted"? Whether the other spending was a waste is certainly debatable, but I'm surprised to hear you arguing that tax cuts were a waste.

Not all tax cuts are created equal.Now please don't beat that drumhead anymore.

 

[tommyGunZ]

The $260B+ in tax cuts were "wasted"? Whether the other spending was a waste is certainly debatable, but I'm surprised to hear you arguing that tax cuts were a waste.

Not all tax cuts are created equal.Now please don't beat that drumhead anymore.

The American Spectator rules all, being the objective bastion of analysis that it is. Do you agree with Ferrara that tax credits to businesses for hiring workers is a waste, as those workers would have been hired anyway? Doesn't that seem to undercut many of the reasons many conservatives on this board call for lower corporate tax rates?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

The $260B+ in tax cuts were "wasted"? Whether the other spending was a waste is certainly debatable, but I'm surprised to hear you arguing that tax cuts were a waste.

Not all tax cuts are created equal.Now please don't beat that drumhead anymore.

The American Spectator rules all, being the objective bastion of analysis that it is. Do you agree with Ferrara that tax credits to businesses for hiring workers is a waste, as those workers would have been hired anyway? Doesn't that seem to undercut many of the reasons many conservatives on this board call for lower corporate tax rates?

I don't know. Do you? Because if you do, doesn't that undercut the first sentence of your reply? And therefore, don't you agree with his article?Are you saying the article is right or wrong?

Edit 1: Actually thinking about it...yes, I think I do agree with that reasoning.

Edit 2: Actually...no you're mixing your taxes here. There's a difference between tax credits and lower corporate tax rates. Sorry, multitasking a bit too much today.

 

[BoneYardDog]

Are we still in Afghanistan???

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Are we still in Afghanistan???

Yes. As they actually had Al Qeada there.

 

[Offa]

This is a bad decision. It's going to cost us It's not worth celebrating. I really don't like this neo-isolationist trend I'm seeing in politics these days. It's an illusion. We can never go home again.

Your views continually amaze me. You think every foreigner should be given citizenship to the US yet US soldiers shouldn't be returning home. I can't figure out if your completely nuts, fishing, or cleverly trying to lure other nation's people here so we can occupy their country.

It's the first option.Seriously, though, this issue has nothing to do with immigration issues, so I'm not sure why you would have brought that up. I will repeat that I was completely opposed to sending troops to Iraq in the first place, it was a terrible decision, but now that it's done we should have kept at least a small number of troops there to keep the peace and as a deterrent against Iran. If Iran comes to dominate Iraq and threatens Saudi Arabia, we WILL be forced to return to the region in much larger numbers and at an incredible expense. If keeping a small force there would prevent this from happening, it's pennies on the dollar.

How would a small number of US troops stop Iran from dominating Iraq? If, in your scenario, the Iraqi government starts some genocide of Sunnis with the support of Iran, I can't see how 20k Americans sitting on bases could do anything. And even if they tried to, they would just be kicked out. Unless the US government wanted to invade AGAIN.Iraq is ####ed in the long term and there's not a huge amount the US can do about it anymore.

A small number of troops left there would deter Iran because of the threat that they represent: if they are messed with, we would likely respond with a much larger force. This is the same strategy we have employed in Korea for the last 60 years: our troops in Korea are not large enough to prevent an invasion of South Korea by North Korea. But their very presence keeps North Korea in check because they're afraid that we would go to war to defend South Korea.

Korea and Iraq is an apples and oranges comparison. In what scenario would Iran contemplate invading Iraq, US troops or no US troops?

 

[JHuber77]

This is a bad decision. It's going to cost us It's not worth celebrating. I really don't like this neo-isolationist trend I'm seeing in politics these days. It's an illusion. We can never go home again.

Your views continually amaze me. You think every foreigner should be given citizenship to the US yet US soldiers shouldn't be returning home. I can't figure out if your completely nuts, fishing, or cleverly trying to lure other nation's people here so we can occupy their country.

It's the first option.Seriously, though, this issue has nothing to do with immigration issues, so I'm not sure why you would have brought that up. I will repeat that I was completely opposed to sending troops to Iraq in the first place, it was a terrible decision, but now that it's done we should have kept at least a small number of troops there to keep the peace and as a deterrent against Iran. If Iran comes to dominate Iraq and threatens Saudi Arabia, we WILL be forced to return to the region in much larger numbers and at an incredible expense. If keeping a small force there would prevent this from happening, it's pennies on the dollar.

How would a small number of US troops stop Iran from dominating Iraq? If, in your scenario, the Iraqi government starts some genocide of Sunnis with the support of Iran, I can't see how 20k Americans sitting on bases could do anything. And even if they tried to, they would just be kicked out. Unless the US government wanted to invade AGAIN.Iraq is ####ed in the long term and there's not a huge amount the US can do about it anymore.

A small number of troops left there would deter Iran because of the threat that they represent: if they are messed with, we would likely respond with a much larger force. This is the same strategy we have employed in Korea for the last 60 years: our troops in Korea are not large enough to prevent an invasion of South Korea by North Korea. But their very presence keeps North Korea in check because they're afraid that we would go to war to defend South Korea.

Korea and Iraq is an apples and oranges comparison. In what scenario would Iran contemplate invading Iraq, US troops or no US troops?

Wait Cain's plan is to tax Korea and Iraq too? I'm IN! All joking aside. I can't recall a place in the world that we have ever invaded that we no longer have troops in.

 

[Big_Russel]

Obama gets credit for doing what was right. He went against campaign promises because he was presented the reality of the situation. He's taken flak for this, as he should for being so critical, but a real leader does what is necessary not what is popular.Troops are coming home from Iraq, killed OBL as well as a host of Al Qaeda leaders and he handled Libya perfectly. We were screaming for help in Irag and Afghanistan which we did not get internationally. We did in Libya. What more could you ask for? You want to go it alone in Libya as well? So we can pound our chests and praise ourselves for "leading from the front", while someone else's son dies? Libya was a masterstroke and the "smallness" of the Republicans was evident this week. Republicans spouting off and saying we need to get into Libya and build an infrastructure there, not here, is jaw-dropping.How can anyone with more then two brain cells say Obama doesn't deserve much credit for OBL? Because he didn't pull the trigger? Really reaching there.Afghanistan is a cluste-f because the real reason we are there is to keep an eye on Pakistan. Dealing with an unstable country with nukes.Anything less then an "A-" for foregin policy is intellectually dishonest. Just nonsense that we should be leading from the front.

This post makes a lot of sense to me. Why hasnt anyone attempted to counter it?

 

[Big_Russel]

Are we still in Afghanistan???

Are they still the largest exporter of smack on the planet?

 

[Jewell]

My question is a pretty simple one: suppose that after we leave, the Shiite dominated government begins to ignore their constitution and represses the Sunni and Kurd minorities, leading to violence and chaos. Suppose they then invite their Iranian friends to help them bring about "order"? What should we do at that point? Go back?

I ask because I have always believed that once we left, this sort of result becomes highly predictable.

Tim, your above comments have strong support among Iraqis according to this survey...About 73 percent of Iraqis said they believe it is likely Iran will act aggressively toward their country after U.S. troops leave in December. Fifty-one percent said they believe the security situation within Iraq will get worse when the U.S. forces leave.

These are the results of a survey conducted by YouGov-Cambridge, a partnership between the British polling group YouGov and Cambridge University. The survey interviewed 505 Iraqis from July 12-27.

The survey also found that 80 percent of Iraqis403 of the 505 surveyedsaid they believe it is likely that neighboring countries will act aggressively toward Iraq after U.S. forces leave the country. Of the 403 who said that thought this was likely, 91 percent said they thought it was likely that Iran would act aggressively toward Iraq.i]

Article w/ more survey results

 

[Short Corner]

NATO and Obama have done a much more cost effective method to rid Libya of Gaddhafi and have the Libyans on side and most importantly grateful.

Seriously? They just bombed Libya back to the stone ages. The majority of Libyans loved Gaddhafi. The only reason we were there was to prevent him from replacing the USD as the currency standard in dealing for Libyan oil.

 

[BoneYardDog]

Libyan leader's embrace of Sharia raises eyebrows...

Egyptians call for Sharia Law, Islamic caliphate...

Good job obama...

Are we still in Afghanistan???

 

[Topes]

U.S. Says Iraqis Are Helping Iran to Skirt Sanctions

Maybe we should go back in.

Of course, we'd have to invade HSBC and Standard Chartered, as well.

 

[BoneYardDog]

U.S. Says Iraqis Are Helping Iran to Skirt Sanctions

Maybe we should go back in.

Of course, we'd have to invade HSBC and Standard Chartered, as well.

Maybe we should get out of Afghanistan, instead of getting more and more young Americans maimed and killed...Why are we in Afghanistan again???

 

[DiStefano]

U.S. Says Iraqis Are Helping Iran to Skirt Sanctions

Maybe we should go back in.

Of course, we'd have to invade HSBC and Standard Chartered, as well.

Maybe we should get out of Afghanistan, instead of getting more and more young Americans maimed and killed...Why are we in Afghanistan again???

Because, as Obama said: "It's the good war."

 

[El Conquistador]

U.S. Says Iraqis Are Helping Iran to Skirt Sanctions

Maybe we should go back in.

Of course, we'd have to invade HSBC and Standard Chartered, as well.

Maybe we should get out of Afghanistan, instead of getting more and more young Americans maimed and killed...Why are we in Afghanistan again???

Because, as Obama said: "It's the good war."

Killing brown people is God's will.

 

[CHEF]

It is so refreshing to come back into the FFA after giving up on the die-hard Republican rhetoric many years ago during Bush II and see some of my Progressive brethren still carrying the torch. Being a member since '03. I got real tired of the hate being spewed.

But, all is not lost you Tea Party fanatics, shMitt Robme is working hard for your votes.

 

[jamny]

Al-Qaeda launches attacks in western Iraq

Al-Qaeda militants in key western Iraqi cities launched a series of brazen attacks against police stations and fought battles with government forces Thursday amid growing sectarian tensions between Sunnis and Shiites.

Al-Qaeda militants, emboldened by their powerful role in attempting to topple the government in neighboring Syria, have been exploiting a sense of alienation among many minority Sunnis in Iraq.

"It's a perfect storm that's been brewing for a long time," said Ryan Crocker, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq.

The violence was touched by recent incidents that have angered Sunnis and led to accusations that the Shiite-led government of Nouri al-Maliki has been heavy-handed in his treatment of political rivals.

"Maliki has taken a very serious and unfortunate step toward pushing a large percentage of the Sunni population to feel disenfranchised," said James Jeffrey, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Last week, government forces arrested a prominent Sunni, triggering a firefight that killed the lawmaker's brother and some of his bodyguards. Security forces then dismantled a Sunni protest camp in Ramadi.

Responding to Sunni concerns, the central government agreed to withdraw its forces from Anbar cities this week. But once the forces left, al-Qaeda militants surfaced in Ramadi and Fallujah, influential Sunni cities west of Baghdad.

The violence erupted just as a number of tribal leaders in recent weeks have been trying to work out a political compromise with Maliki's government, said Sterling Jensen, an analyst at the National Defense University's Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies.

"They were about to get a negotiated settlement," Jensen said. "For some reason, Maliki chose this time to go against the protesters."

Jensen said Maliki probably wanted to show strength in advance of national elections scheduled for April, Jensen said.

Ramadi and Fallujah are the major cities in Anbar, a Sunni region that has played an influential role in shaping Iraq's history.

After the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the region became a hotbed of the Sunni insurgency that fought American forces. In 2004, Fallujah had become a symbol of resistance to the U.S. presence until an American-led offensive drove militants from the city in bloody street fighting.

In 2006 and 2007, a network of tribal leaders in Ramadi who were backed by American forces led an effective revolt against al-Qaeda, helping to turn the tide of war in Iraq.

Today, tribal leaders in Anbar remain wary of al-Qaeda and have urged local police to fight the militants, analysts say.

However, they point out that it was the presence of Americans who gave tribal leaders the confidence to turn on al-Qaeda in 2006 and 2007. Sunni tribal leaders saw Americans as an ally that could protect them from al-Qaeda and the excesses of a Shiite-dominated government.

Analysts fear that Sunnis now may be driven into the arms of al-Qaeda if they feel it is the only bulwark against a government hostile to their interests.

"It's possible they are now opening their communities to an al-Qaeda they didn't like," said Stephen Biddle, a national security analyst and professor at George Washington University.

Al-Qaeda has also been strengthened by the civil war in neighboring Syria. The war there has attracted foreigners who came to fight under the al-Qaeda banner. Some of those fighters may be spilling into western Iraq, analysts say.

The fighting in Syria has given al-Qaeda in Syria "a new lease on life," Jeffrey said.

"There are no peacekeepers here to stabilize this," Biddle said. "As a result, you get a very dangerous tinderbox."

 

[MaxThreshold]

Al-Qaeda launches attacks in western Iraq

Al-Qaeda militants in key western Iraqi cities launched a series of brazen attacks against police stations and fought battles with government forces Thursday amid growing sectarian tensions between Sunnis and Shiites.

Al-Qaeda militants, emboldened by their powerful role in attempting to topple the government in neighboring Syria, have been exploiting a sense of alienation among many minority Sunnis in Iraq.

"It's a perfect storm that's been brewing for a long time," said Ryan Crocker, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq.

The violence was touched by recent incidents that have angered Sunnis and led to accusations that the Shiite-led government of Nouri al-Maliki has been heavy-handed in his treatment of political rivals.

"Maliki has taken a very serious and unfortunate step toward pushing a large percentage of the Sunni population to feel disenfranchised," said James Jeffrey, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Last week, government forces arrested a prominent Sunni, triggering a firefight that killed the lawmaker's brother and some of his bodyguards. Security forces then dismantled a Sunni protest camp in Ramadi.

Responding to Sunni concerns, the central government agreed to withdraw its forces from Anbar cities this week. But once the forces left, al-Qaeda militants surfaced in Ramadi and Fallujah, influential Sunni cities west of Baghdad.

The violence erupted just as a number of tribal leaders in recent weeks have been trying to work out a political compromise with Maliki's government, said Sterling Jensen, an analyst at the National Defense University's Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies.

"They were about to get a negotiated settlement," Jensen said. "For some reason, Maliki chose this time to go against the protesters."

Jensen said Maliki probably wanted to show strength in advance of national elections scheduled for April, Jensen said.

Ramadi and Fallujah are the major cities in Anbar, a Sunni region that has played an influential role in shaping Iraq's history.

After the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the region became a hotbed of the Sunni insurgency that fought American forces. In 2004, Fallujah had become a symbol of resistance to the U.S. presence until an American-led offensive drove militants from the city in bloody street fighting.

In 2006 and 2007, a network of tribal leaders in Ramadi who were backed by American forces led an effective revolt against al-Qaeda, helping to turn the tide of war in Iraq.

Today, tribal leaders in Anbar remain wary of al-Qaeda and have urged local police to fight the militants, analysts say.

However, they point out that it was the presence of Americans who gave tribal leaders the confidence to turn on al-Qaeda in 2006 and 2007. Sunni tribal leaders saw Americans as an ally that could protect them from al-Qaeda and the excesses of a Shiite-dominated government.

Analysts fear that Sunnis now may be driven into the arms of al-Qaeda if they feel it is the only bulwark against a government hostile to their interests.

"It's possible they are now opening their communities to an al-Qaeda they didn't like," said Stephen Biddle, a national security analyst and professor at George Washington University.

Al-Qaeda has also been strengthened by the civil war in neighboring Syria. The war there has attracted foreigners who came to fight under the al-Qaeda banner. Some of those fighters may be spilling into western Iraq, analysts say.

The fighting in Syria has given al-Qaeda in Syria "a new lease on life," Jeffrey said.

"There are no peacekeepers here to stabilize this," Biddle said. "As a result, you get a very dangerous tinderbox."

Wait a minute...according to the OP, Obama declared the war was over. Was that just ANOTHER lie?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Al-Qaeda launches attacks in western Iraq

Al-Qaeda militants in key western Iraqi cities launched a series of brazen attacks against police stations and fought battles with government forces Thursday amid growing sectarian tensions between Sunnis and Shiites.

Al-Qaeda militants, emboldened by their powerful role in attempting to topple the government in neighboring Syria, have been exploiting a sense of alienation among many minority Sunnis in Iraq.

"It's a perfect storm that's been brewing for a long time," said Ryan Crocker, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq.

The violence was touched by recent incidents that have angered Sunnis and led to accusations that the Shiite-led government of Nouri al-Maliki has been heavy-handed in his treatment of political rivals.

"Maliki has taken a very serious and unfortunate step toward pushing a large percentage of the Sunni population to feel disenfranchised," said James Jeffrey, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Last week, government forces arrested a prominent Sunni, triggering a firefight that killed the lawmaker's brother and some of his bodyguards. Security forces then dismantled a Sunni protest camp in Ramadi.

Responding to Sunni concerns, the central government agreed to withdraw its forces from Anbar cities this week. But once the forces left, al-Qaeda militants surfaced in Ramadi and Fallujah, influential Sunni cities west of Baghdad.

The violence erupted just as a number of tribal leaders in recent weeks have been trying to work out a political compromise with Maliki's government, said Sterling Jensen, an analyst at the National Defense University's Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies.

"They were about to get a negotiated settlement," Jensen said. "For some reason, Maliki chose this time to go against the protesters."

Jensen said Maliki probably wanted to show strength in advance of national elections scheduled for April, Jensen said.

Ramadi and Fallujah are the major cities in Anbar, a Sunni region that has played an influential role in shaping Iraq's history.

After the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the region became a hotbed of the Sunni insurgency that fought American forces. In 2004, Fallujah had become a symbol of resistance to the U.S. presence until an American-led offensive drove militants from the city in bloody street fighting.

In 2006 and 2007, a network of tribal leaders in Ramadi who were backed by American forces led an effective revolt against al-Qaeda, helping to turn the tide of war in Iraq.

Today, tribal leaders in Anbar remain wary of al-Qaeda and have urged local police to fight the militants, analysts say.

However, they point out that it was the presence of Americans who gave tribal leaders the confidence to turn on al-Qaeda in 2006 and 2007. Sunni tribal leaders saw Americans as an ally that could protect them from al-Qaeda and the excesses of a Shiite-dominated government.

Analysts fear that Sunnis now may be driven into the arms of al-Qaeda if they feel it is the only bulwark against a government hostile to their interests.

"It's possible they are now opening their communities to an al-Qaeda they didn't like," said Stephen Biddle, a national security analyst and professor at George Washington University.

Al-Qaeda has also been strengthened by the civil war in neighboring Syria. The war there has attracted foreigners who came to fight under the al-Qaeda banner. Some of those fighters may be spilling into western Iraq, analysts say.

The fighting in Syria has given al-Qaeda in Syria "a new lease on life," Jeffrey said.

"There are no peacekeepers here to stabilize this," Biddle said. "As a result, you get a very dangerous tinderbox."

Wait a minute...according to the OP, Obama declared the war was over. Was that just ANOTHER lie?

This is interesting:

The fighting in Syria has given al-Qaeda in Syria "a new lease on life," Jeffrey said.

Something I've read is that whereas there was arms and militants flowing from Syria to Iraq, now it's the other way around.

AQ views that as the Crescent, or the Levant, or something like that. It's not about borders, the war for them has always been "Mesopotamia," ranging from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates-Tigris and the Persian Gulf.

Obama has more less allowed a power vacuum to foment in Syria.

With no USA troops in Iraq or northern Arabia, and no support for relatively secular or democratic forces, I'm not sure what they're supposed to be worried about.

I do believe I recall Obama on the stump repeatedly talking about how AQ had been defeated. Then Benghazi happened, and it became apparent, AQ or not, that terrorists were still bent on hitting US diplomatic, military and civilian targets abroad. It wasn't the video that was what they were really concerned about, it was the "spontaneous" element that they wanted to pursue and make stick.

 

[Slapdash]

Al-Qaeda launches attacks in western Iraq

Al-Qaeda militants in key western Iraqi cities launched a series of brazen attacks against police stations and fought battles with government forces Thursday amid growing sectarian tensions between Sunnis and Shiites.

Al-Qaeda militants, emboldened by their powerful role in attempting to topple the government in neighboring Syria, have been exploiting a sense of alienation among many minority Sunnis in Iraq.

"It's a perfect storm that's been brewing for a long time," said Ryan Crocker, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq.

The violence was touched by recent incidents that have angered Sunnis and led to accusations that the Shiite-led government of Nouri al-Maliki has been heavy-handed in his treatment of political rivals.

"Maliki has taken a very serious and unfortunate step toward pushing a large percentage of the Sunni population to feel disenfranchised," said James Jeffrey, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Last week, government forces arrested a prominent Sunni, triggering a firefight that killed the lawmaker's brother and some of his bodyguards. Security forces then dismantled a Sunni protest camp in Ramadi.

Responding to Sunni concerns, the central government agreed to withdraw its forces from Anbar cities this week. But once the forces left, al-Qaeda militants surfaced in Ramadi and Fallujah, influential Sunni cities west of Baghdad.

The violence erupted just as a number of tribal leaders in recent weeks have been trying to work out a political compromise with Maliki's government, said Sterling Jensen, an analyst at the National Defense University's Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies.

"They were about to get a negotiated settlement," Jensen said. "For some reason, Maliki chose this time to go against the protesters."

Jensen said Maliki probably wanted to show strength in advance of national elections scheduled for April, Jensen said.

Ramadi and Fallujah are the major cities in Anbar, a Sunni region that has played an influential role in shaping Iraq's history.

After the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the region became a hotbed of the Sunni insurgency that fought American forces. In 2004, Fallujah had become a symbol of resistance to the U.S. presence until an American-led offensive drove militants from the city in bloody street fighting.

In 2006 and 2007, a network of tribal leaders in Ramadi who were backed by American forces led an effective revolt against al-Qaeda, helping to turn the tide of war in Iraq.

Today, tribal leaders in Anbar remain wary of al-Qaeda and have urged local police to fight the militants, analysts say.

However, they point out that it was the presence of Americans who gave tribal leaders the confidence to turn on al-Qaeda in 2006 and 2007. Sunni tribal leaders saw Americans as an ally that could protect them from al-Qaeda and the excesses of a Shiite-dominated government.

Analysts fear that Sunnis now may be driven into the arms of al-Qaeda if they feel it is the only bulwark against a government hostile to their interests.

"It's possible they are now opening their communities to an al-Qaeda they didn't like," said Stephen Biddle, a national security analyst and professor at George Washington University.

Al-Qaeda has also been strengthened by the civil war in neighboring Syria. The war there has attracted foreigners who came to fight under the al-Qaeda banner. Some of those fighters may be spilling into western Iraq, analysts say.

The fighting in Syria has given al-Qaeda in Syria "a new lease on life," Jeffrey said.

"There are no peacekeepers here to stabilize this," Biddle said. "As a result, you get a very dangerous tinderbox."

Wait a minute...according to the OP, Obama declared the war was over. Was that just ANOTHER lie?

This is interesting:

The fighting in Syria has given al-Qaeda in Syria "a new lease on life," Jeffrey said.

Something I've read is that whereas there was arms and militants flowing from Syria to Iraq, now it's the other way around.

AQ views that as the Crescent, or the Levant, or something like that. It's not about borders, the war for them has always been "Mesopotamia," ranging from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates-Tigris and the Persian Gulf.

Obama has more less allowed a power vacuum to foment in Syria.

With no USA troops in Iraq or northern Arabia, and no support for relatively secular or democratic forces, I'm not sure what they're supposed to be worried about.

I do believe I recall Obama on the stump repeatedly talking about how AQ had been defeated. Then Benghazi happened, and it became apparent, AQ or not, that terrorists were still bent on hitting US diplomatic, military and civilian targets abroad. It wasn't the video that was what they were really concerned about, it was the "spontaneous" element that they wanted to pursue and make stick.

So what are we supposed to do in Syria, support Assad? Support the rebels who are mostly Al Queada?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Al-Qaeda launches attacks in western Iraq

Al-Qaeda militants in key western Iraqi cities launched a series of brazen attacks against police stations and fought battles with government forces Thursday amid growing sectarian tensions between Sunnis and Shiites.

Al-Qaeda militants, emboldened by their powerful role in attempting to topple the government in neighboring Syria, have been exploiting a sense of alienation among many minority Sunnis in Iraq.

"It's a perfect storm that's been brewing for a long time," said Ryan Crocker, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq.

The violence was touched by recent incidents that have angered Sunnis and led to accusations that the Shiite-led government of Nouri al-Maliki has been heavy-handed in his treatment of political rivals.

"Maliki has taken a very serious and unfortunate step toward pushing a large percentage of the Sunni population to feel disenfranchised," said James Jeffrey, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Last week, government forces arrested a prominent Sunni, triggering a firefight that killed the lawmaker's brother and some of his bodyguards. Security forces then dismantled a Sunni protest camp in Ramadi.

Responding to Sunni concerns, the central government agreed to withdraw its forces from Anbar cities this week. But once the forces left, al-Qaeda militants surfaced in Ramadi and Fallujah, influential Sunni cities west of Baghdad.

The violence erupted just as a number of tribal leaders in recent weeks have been trying to work out a political compromise with Maliki's government, said Sterling Jensen, an analyst at the National Defense University's Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies.

"They were about to get a negotiated settlement," Jensen said. "For some reason, Maliki chose this time to go against the protesters."

Jensen said Maliki probably wanted to show strength in advance of national elections scheduled for April, Jensen said.

Ramadi and Fallujah are the major cities in Anbar, a Sunni region that has played an influential role in shaping Iraq's history.

After the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the region became a hotbed of the Sunni insurgency that fought American forces. In 2004, Fallujah had become a symbol of resistance to the U.S. presence until an American-led offensive drove militants from the city in bloody street fighting.

In 2006 and 2007, a network of tribal leaders in Ramadi who were backed by American forces led an effective revolt against al-Qaeda, helping to turn the tide of war in Iraq.

Today, tribal leaders in Anbar remain wary of al-Qaeda and have urged local police to fight the militants, analysts say.

However, they point out that it was the presence of Americans who gave tribal leaders the confidence to turn on al-Qaeda in 2006 and 2007. Sunni tribal leaders saw Americans as an ally that could protect them from al-Qaeda and the excesses of a Shiite-dominated government.

Analysts fear that Sunnis now may be driven into the arms of al-Qaeda if they feel it is the only bulwark against a government hostile to their interests.

"It's possible they are now opening their communities to an al-Qaeda they didn't like," said Stephen Biddle, a national security analyst and professor at George Washington University.

Al-Qaeda has also been strengthened by the civil war in neighboring Syria. The war there has attracted foreigners who came to fight under the al-Qaeda banner. Some of those fighters may be spilling into western Iraq, analysts say.

The fighting in Syria has given al-Qaeda in Syria "a new lease on life," Jeffrey said.

"There are no peacekeepers here to stabilize this," Biddle said. "As a result, you get a very dangerous tinderbox."

Wait a minute...according to the OP, Obama declared the war was over. Was that just ANOTHER lie?

This is interesting:

The fighting in Syria has given al-Qaeda in Syria "a new lease on life," Jeffrey said.

Something I've read is that whereas there was arms and militants flowing from Syria to Iraq, now it's the other way around.

AQ views that as the Crescent, or the Levant, or something like that. It's not about borders, the war for them has always been "Mesopotamia," ranging from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates-Tigris and the Persian Gulf.

Obama has more less allowed a power vacuum to foment in Syria.

With no USA troops in Iraq or northern Arabia, and no support for relatively secular or democratic forces, I'm not sure what they're supposed to be worried about.

I do believe I recall Obama on the stump repeatedly talking about how AQ had been defeated. Then Benghazi happened, and it became apparent, AQ or not, that terrorists were still bent on hitting US diplomatic, military and civilian targets abroad. It wasn't the video that was what they were really concerned about, it was the "spontaneous" element that they wanted to pursue and make stick.

So what are we supposed to do in Syria, support Assad? Support the rebels who are mostly Al Queada?

I'd say 1. coordinate a strategy with an emphasis on defeating AQ in the entire region and then execute it, and 2. speak publicly from the WH about the reality of this ongoing battle.

On No. 1, I think the strategy started under Bush, and more or less followed by Obama (though maybe Bush & Co. may have preferred betting on different horses), right or wrong, is that the authoritarian regimes were one of the primary causors of the terrorist groups, their ideology and their membership. So, good, bad, ugly, break up the balls on the global pool table and make something else happen. Assad has to go.

 

[Christo]

Al-Qaeda launches attacks in western Iraq

Al-Qaeda militants in key western Iraqi cities launched a series of brazen attacks against police stations and fought battles with government forces Thursday amid growing sectarian tensions between Sunnis and Shiites.

Al-Qaeda militants, emboldened by their powerful role in attempting to topple the government in neighboring Syria, have been exploiting a sense of alienation among many minority Sunnis in Iraq.

"It's a perfect storm that's been brewing for a long time," said Ryan Crocker, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq.

The violence was touched by recent incidents that have angered Sunnis and led to accusations that the Shiite-led government of Nouri al-Maliki has been heavy-handed in his treatment of political rivals.

"Maliki has taken a very serious and unfortunate step toward pushing a large percentage of the Sunni population to feel disenfranchised," said James Jeffrey, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Last week, government forces arrested a prominent Sunni, triggering a firefight that killed the lawmaker's brother and some of his bodyguards. Security forces then dismantled a Sunni protest camp in Ramadi.

Responding to Sunni concerns, the central government agreed to withdraw its forces from Anbar cities this week. But once the forces left, al-Qaeda militants surfaced in Ramadi and Fallujah, influential Sunni cities west of Baghdad.

The violence erupted just as a number of tribal leaders in recent weeks have been trying to work out a political compromise with Maliki's government, said Sterling Jensen, an analyst at the National Defense University's Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies.

"They were about to get a negotiated settlement," Jensen said. "For some reason, Maliki chose this time to go against the protesters."

Jensen said Maliki probably wanted to show strength in advance of national elections scheduled for April, Jensen said.

Ramadi and Fallujah are the major cities in Anbar, a Sunni region that has played an influential role in shaping Iraq's history.

After the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the region became a hotbed of the Sunni insurgency that fought American forces. In 2004, Fallujah had become a symbol of resistance to the U.S. presence until an American-led offensive drove militants from the city in bloody street fighting.

In 2006 and 2007, a network of tribal leaders in Ramadi who were backed by American forces led an effective revolt against al-Qaeda, helping to turn the tide of war in Iraq.

Today, tribal leaders in Anbar remain wary of al-Qaeda and have urged local police to fight the militants, analysts say.

However, they point out that it was the presence of Americans who gave tribal leaders the confidence to turn on al-Qaeda in 2006 and 2007. Sunni tribal leaders saw Americans as an ally that could protect them from al-Qaeda and the excesses of a Shiite-dominated government.

Analysts fear that Sunnis now may be driven into the arms of al-Qaeda if they feel it is the only bulwark against a government hostile to their interests.

"It's possible they are now opening their communities to an al-Qaeda they didn't like," said Stephen Biddle, a national security analyst and professor at George Washington University.

Al-Qaeda has also been strengthened by the civil war in neighboring Syria. The war there has attracted foreigners who came to fight under the al-Qaeda banner. Some of those fighters may be spilling into western Iraq, analysts say.

The fighting in Syria has given al-Qaeda in Syria "a new lease on life," Jeffrey said.

"There are no peacekeepers here to stabilize this," Biddle said. "As a result, you get a very dangerous tinderbox."

Wait a minute...according to the OP, Obama declared the war was over. Was that just ANOTHER lie?

This is interesting:

The fighting in Syria has given al-Qaeda in Syria "a new lease on life," Jeffrey said.

Something I've read is that whereas there was arms and militants flowing from Syria to Iraq, now it's the other way around.

AQ views that as the Crescent, or the Levant, or something like that. It's not about borders, the war for them has always been "Mesopotamia," ranging from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates-Tigris and the Persian Gulf.

Obama has more less allowed a power vacuum to foment in Syria.

With no USA troops in Iraq or northern Arabia, and no support for relatively secular or democratic forces, I'm not sure what they're supposed to be worried about.

I do believe I recall Obama on the stump repeatedly talking about how AQ had been defeated. Then Benghazi happened, and it became apparent, AQ or not, that terrorists were still bent on hitting US diplomatic, military and civilian targets abroad. It wasn't the video that was what they were really concerned about, it was the "spontaneous" element that they wanted to pursue and make stick.

So what are we supposed to do in Syria, support Assad? Support the rebels who are mostly Al Queada?

We have supported oppressive, violent dictators for years. Why change now?

 

[Christo]

Al-Qaeda launches attacks in western Iraq

Al-Qaeda militants in key western Iraqi cities launched a series of brazen attacks against police stations and fought battles with government forces Thursday amid growing sectarian tensions between Sunnis and Shiites.

Al-Qaeda militants, emboldened by their powerful role in attempting to topple the government in neighboring Syria, have been exploiting a sense of alienation among many minority Sunnis in Iraq.

"It's a perfect storm that's been brewing for a long time," said Ryan Crocker, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq.

The violence was touched by recent incidents that have angered Sunnis and led to accusations that the Shiite-led government of Nouri al-Maliki has been heavy-handed in his treatment of political rivals.

"Maliki has taken a very serious and unfortunate step toward pushing a large percentage of the Sunni population to feel disenfranchised," said James Jeffrey, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Last week, government forces arrested a prominent Sunni, triggering a firefight that killed the lawmaker's brother and some of his bodyguards. Security forces then dismantled a Sunni protest camp in Ramadi.

Responding to Sunni concerns, the central government agreed to withdraw its forces from Anbar cities this week. But once the forces left, al-Qaeda militants surfaced in Ramadi and Fallujah, influential Sunni cities west of Baghdad.

The violence erupted just as a number of tribal leaders in recent weeks have been trying to work out a political compromise with Maliki's government, said Sterling Jensen, an analyst at the National Defense University's Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies.

"They were about to get a negotiated settlement," Jensen said. "For some reason, Maliki chose this time to go against the protesters."

Jensen said Maliki probably wanted to show strength in advance of national elections scheduled for April, Jensen said.

Ramadi and Fallujah are the major cities in Anbar, a Sunni region that has played an influential role in shaping Iraq's history.

After the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the region became a hotbed of the Sunni insurgency that fought American forces. In 2004, Fallujah had become a symbol of resistance to the U.S. presence until an American-led offensive drove militants from the city in bloody street fighting.

In 2006 and 2007, a network of tribal leaders in Ramadi who were backed by American forces led an effective revolt against al-Qaeda, helping to turn the tide of war in Iraq.

Today, tribal leaders in Anbar remain wary of al-Qaeda and have urged local police to fight the militants, analysts say.

However, they point out that it was the presence of Americans who gave tribal leaders the confidence to turn on al-Qaeda in 2006 and 2007. Sunni tribal leaders saw Americans as an ally that could protect them from al-Qaeda and the excesses of a Shiite-dominated government.

Analysts fear that Sunnis now may be driven into the arms of al-Qaeda if they feel it is the only bulwark against a government hostile to their interests.

"It's possible they are now opening their communities to an al-Qaeda they didn't like," said Stephen Biddle, a national security analyst and professor at George Washington University.

Al-Qaeda has also been strengthened by the civil war in neighboring Syria. The war there has attracted foreigners who came to fight under the al-Qaeda banner. Some of those fighters may be spilling into western Iraq, analysts say.

The fighting in Syria has given al-Qaeda in Syria "a new lease on life," Jeffrey said.

"There are no peacekeepers here to stabilize this," Biddle said. "As a result, you get a very dangerous tinderbox."

Wait a minute...according to the OP, Obama declared the war was over. Was that just ANOTHER lie?

This is interesting:

The fighting in Syria has given al-Qaeda in Syria "a new lease on life," Jeffrey said.

Something I've read is that whereas there was arms and militants flowing from Syria to Iraq, now it's the other way around.

AQ views that as the Crescent, or the Levant, or something like that. It's not about borders, the war for them has always been "Mesopotamia," ranging from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates-Tigris and the Persian Gulf.

Obama has more less allowed a power vacuum to foment in Syria.

With no USA troops in Iraq or northern Arabia, and no support for relatively secular or democratic forces, I'm not sure what they're supposed to be worried about.

I do believe I recall Obama on the stump repeatedly talking about how AQ had been defeated. Then Benghazi happened, and it became apparent, AQ or not, that terrorists were still bent on hitting US diplomatic, military and civilian targets abroad. It wasn't the video that was what they were really concerned about, it was the "spontaneous" element that they wanted to pursue and make stick.

So what are we supposed to do in Syria, support Assad? Support the rebels who are mostly Al Queada?

I'd say 1. coordinate a strategy with an emphasis on defeating AQ in the entire region and then execute it, and 2. speak publicly from the WH about the reality of this ongoing battle.

On No. 1, I think the strategy started under Bush, and more or less followed by Obama (though maybe Bush & Co. may have preferred betting on different horses), right or wrong, is that the authoritarian regimes were one of the primary causors of the terrorist groups, their ideology and their membership. So, good, bad, ugly, break up the balls on the global pool table and make something else happen. Assad has to go.

That's what we've started to do with reaching out to Iran.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Al-Qaeda launches attacks in western Iraq

Al-Qaeda militants in key western Iraqi cities launched a series of brazen attacks against police stations and fought battles with government forces Thursday amid growing sectarian tensions between Sunnis and Shiites.

Al-Qaeda militants, emboldened by their powerful role in attempting to topple the government in neighboring Syria, have been exploiting a sense of alienation among many minority Sunnis in Iraq.

"It's a perfect storm that's been brewing for a long time," said Ryan Crocker, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq.

The violence was touched by recent incidents that have angered Sunnis and led to accusations that the Shiite-led government of Nouri al-Maliki has been heavy-handed in his treatment of political rivals.

"Maliki has taken a very serious and unfortunate step toward pushing a large percentage of the Sunni population to feel disenfranchised," said James Jeffrey, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Last week, government forces arrested a prominent Sunni, triggering a firefight that killed the lawmaker's brother and some of his bodyguards. Security forces then dismantled a Sunni protest camp in Ramadi.

Responding to Sunni concerns, the central government agreed to withdraw its forces from Anbar cities this week. But once the forces left, al-Qaeda militants surfaced in Ramadi and Fallujah, influential Sunni cities west of Baghdad.

The violence erupted just as a number of tribal leaders in recent weeks have been trying to work out a political compromise with Maliki's government, said Sterling Jensen, an analyst at the National Defense University's Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies.

"They were about to get a negotiated settlement," Jensen said. "For some reason, Maliki chose this time to go against the protesters."

Jensen said Maliki probably wanted to show strength in advance of national elections scheduled for April, Jensen said.

Ramadi and Fallujah are the major cities in Anbar, a Sunni region that has played an influential role in shaping Iraq's history.

After the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the region became a hotbed of the Sunni insurgency that fought American forces. In 2004, Fallujah had become a symbol of resistance to the U.S. presence until an American-led offensive drove militants from the city in bloody street fighting.

In 2006 and 2007, a network of tribal leaders in Ramadi who were backed by American forces led an effective revolt against al-Qaeda, helping to turn the tide of war in Iraq.

Today, tribal leaders in Anbar remain wary of al-Qaeda and have urged local police to fight the militants, analysts say.

However, they point out that it was the presence of Americans who gave tribal leaders the confidence to turn on al-Qaeda in 2006 and 2007. Sunni tribal leaders saw Americans as an ally that could protect them from al-Qaeda and the excesses of a Shiite-dominated government.

Analysts fear that Sunnis now may be driven into the arms of al-Qaeda if they feel it is the only bulwark against a government hostile to their interests.

"It's possible they are now opening their communities to an al-Qaeda they didn't like," said Stephen Biddle, a national security analyst and professor at George Washington University.

Al-Qaeda has also been strengthened by the civil war in neighboring Syria. The war there has attracted foreigners who came to fight under the al-Qaeda banner. Some of those fighters may be spilling into western Iraq, analysts say.

The fighting in Syria has given al-Qaeda in Syria "a new lease on life," Jeffrey said.

"There are no peacekeepers here to stabilize this," Biddle said. "As a result, you get a very dangerous tinderbox."

Wait a minute...according to the OP, Obama declared the war was over. Was that just ANOTHER lie?

This is interesting:

The fighting in Syria has given al-Qaeda in Syria "a new lease on life," Jeffrey said.

Something I've read is that whereas there was arms and militants flowing from Syria to Iraq, now it's the other way around.

AQ views that as the Crescent, or the Levant, or something like that. It's not about borders, the war for them has always been "Mesopotamia," ranging from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates-Tigris and the Persian Gulf.

Obama has more less allowed a power vacuum to foment in Syria.

With no USA troops in Iraq or northern Arabia, and no support for relatively secular or democratic forces, I'm not sure what they're supposed to be worried about.

I do believe I recall Obama on the stump repeatedly talking about how AQ had been defeated. Then Benghazi happened, and it became apparent, AQ or not, that terrorists were still bent on hitting US diplomatic, military and civilian targets abroad. It wasn't the video that was what they were really concerned about, it was the "spontaneous" element that they wanted to pursue and make stick.

So what are we supposed to do in Syria, support Assad? Support the rebels who are mostly Al Queada?

I'd say 1. coordinate a strategy with an emphasis on defeating AQ in the entire region and then execute it, and 2. speak publicly from the WH about the reality of this ongoing battle.

On No. 1, I think the strategy started under Bush, and more or less followed by Obama (though maybe Bush & Co. may have preferred betting on different horses), right or wrong, is that the authoritarian regimes were one of the primary causors of the terrorist groups, their ideology and their membership. So, good, bad, ugly, break up the balls on the global pool table and make something else happen. Assad has to go.

That's what we've started to do with reaching out to Iran.

Persia.

Can't live with `em, can't blow up their secret nukes sites.

I wish we could do a rewind to 1975 all over again with those guys, and get it right. We sure could use them on our side right about now.

 

[Slapdash]

Al-Qaeda launches attacks in western Iraq

Al-Qaeda militants in key western Iraqi cities launched a series of brazen attacks against police stations and fought battles with government forces Thursday amid growing sectarian tensions between Sunnis and Shiites.

Al-Qaeda militants, emboldened by their powerful role in attempting to topple the government in neighboring Syria, have been exploiting a sense of alienation among many minority Sunnis in Iraq.

"It's a perfect storm that's been brewing for a long time," said Ryan Crocker, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq.

The violence was touched by recent incidents that have angered Sunnis and led to accusations that the Shiite-led government of Nouri al-Maliki has been heavy-handed in his treatment of political rivals.

"Maliki has taken a very serious and unfortunate step toward pushing a large percentage of the Sunni population to feel disenfranchised," said James Jeffrey, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Last week, government forces arrested a prominent Sunni, triggering a firefight that killed the lawmaker's brother and some of his bodyguards. Security forces then dismantled a Sunni protest camp in Ramadi.

Responding to Sunni concerns, the central government agreed to withdraw its forces from Anbar cities this week. But once the forces left, al-Qaeda militants surfaced in Ramadi and Fallujah, influential Sunni cities west of Baghdad.

The violence erupted just as a number of tribal leaders in recent weeks have been trying to work out a political compromise with Maliki's government, said Sterling Jensen, an analyst at the National Defense University's Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies.

"They were about to get a negotiated settlement," Jensen said. "For some reason, Maliki chose this time to go against the protesters."

Jensen said Maliki probably wanted to show strength in advance of national elections scheduled for April, Jensen said.

Ramadi and Fallujah are the major cities in Anbar, a Sunni region that has played an influential role in shaping Iraq's history.

After the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the region became a hotbed of the Sunni insurgency that fought American forces. In 2004, Fallujah had become a symbol of resistance to the U.S. presence until an American-led offensive drove militants from the city in bloody street fighting.

In 2006 and 2007, a network of tribal leaders in Ramadi who were backed by American forces led an effective revolt against al-Qaeda, helping to turn the tide of war in Iraq.

Today, tribal leaders in Anbar remain wary of al-Qaeda and have urged local police to fight the militants, analysts say.

However, they point out that it was the presence of Americans who gave tribal leaders the confidence to turn on al-Qaeda in 2006 and 2007. Sunni tribal leaders saw Americans as an ally that could protect them from al-Qaeda and the excesses of a Shiite-dominated government.

Analysts fear that Sunnis now may be driven into the arms of al-Qaeda if they feel it is the only bulwark against a government hostile to their interests.

"It's possible they are now opening their communities to an al-Qaeda they didn't like," said Stephen Biddle, a national security analyst and professor at George Washington University.

Al-Qaeda has also been strengthened by the civil war in neighboring Syria. The war there has attracted foreigners who came to fight under the al-Qaeda banner. Some of those fighters may be spilling into western Iraq, analysts say.

The fighting in Syria has given al-Qaeda in Syria "a new lease on life," Jeffrey said.

"There are no peacekeepers here to stabilize this," Biddle said. "As a result, you get a very dangerous tinderbox."

Wait a minute...according to the OP, Obama declared the war was over. Was that just ANOTHER lie?

This is interesting:

The fighting in Syria has given al-Qaeda in Syria "a new lease on life," Jeffrey said.

Something I've read is that whereas there was arms and militants flowing from Syria to Iraq, now it's the other way around.

AQ views that as the Crescent, or the Levant, or something like that. It's not about borders, the war for them has always been "Mesopotamia," ranging from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates-Tigris and the Persian Gulf.

Obama has more less allowed a power vacuum to foment in Syria.

With no USA troops in Iraq or northern Arabia, and no support for relatively secular or democratic forces, I'm not sure what they're supposed to be worried about.

I do believe I recall Obama on the stump repeatedly talking about how AQ had been defeated. Then Benghazi happened, and it became apparent, AQ or not, that terrorists were still bent on hitting US diplomatic, military and civilian targets abroad. It wasn't the video that was what they were really concerned about, it was the "spontaneous" element that they wanted to pursue and make stick.

So what are we supposed to do in Syria, support Assad? Support the rebels who are mostly Al Queada?

I'd say 1. coordinate a strategy with an emphasis on defeating AQ in the entire region and then execute it, and 2. speak publicly from the WH about the reality of this ongoing battle.

On No. 1, I think the strategy started under Bush, and more or less followed by Obama (though maybe Bush & Co. may have preferred betting on different horses), right or wrong, is that the authoritarian regimes were one of the primary causors of the terrorist groups, their ideology and their membership. So, good, bad, ugly, break up the balls on the global pool table and make something else happen. Assad has to go.

Not going to be able to remove Assad without supporting AQ or another full scale occupation. No thanks.

 

[mad sweeney]

Al-Qaeda launches attacks in western Iraq

Al-Qaeda militants in key western Iraqi cities launched a series of brazen attacks against police stations and fought battles with government forces Thursday amid growing sectarian tensions between Sunnis and Shiites.

Al-Qaeda militants, emboldened by their powerful role in attempting to topple the government in neighboring Syria, have been exploiting a sense of alienation among many minority Sunnis in Iraq.

"It's a perfect storm that's been brewing for a long time," said Ryan Crocker, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq.

The violence was touched by recent incidents that have angered Sunnis and led to accusations that the Shiite-led government of Nouri al-Maliki has been heavy-handed in his treatment of political rivals.

"Maliki has taken a very serious and unfortunate step toward pushing a large percentage of the Sunni population to feel disenfranchised," said James Jeffrey, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Last week, government forces arrested a prominent Sunni, triggering a firefight that killed the lawmaker's brother and some of his bodyguards. Security forces then dismantled a Sunni protest camp in Ramadi.

Responding to Sunni concerns, the central government agreed to withdraw its forces from Anbar cities this week. But once the forces left, al-Qaeda militants surfaced in Ramadi and Fallujah, influential Sunni cities west of Baghdad.

The violence erupted just as a number of tribal leaders in recent weeks have been trying to work out a political compromise with Maliki's government, said Sterling Jensen, an analyst at the National Defense University's Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies.

"They were about to get a negotiated settlement," Jensen said. "For some reason, Maliki chose this time to go against the protesters."

Jensen said Maliki probably wanted to show strength in advance of national elections scheduled for April, Jensen said.

Ramadi and Fallujah are the major cities in Anbar, a Sunni region that has played an influential role in shaping Iraq's history.

After the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the region became a hotbed of the Sunni insurgency that fought American forces. In 2004, Fallujah had become a symbol of resistance to the U.S. presence until an American-led offensive drove militants from the city in bloody street fighting.

In 2006 and 2007, a network of tribal leaders in Ramadi who were backed by American forces led an effective revolt against al-Qaeda, helping to turn the tide of war in Iraq.

Today, tribal leaders in Anbar remain wary of al-Qaeda and have urged local police to fight the militants, analysts say.

However, they point out that it was the presence of Americans who gave tribal leaders the confidence to turn on al-Qaeda in 2006 and 2007. Sunni tribal leaders saw Americans as an ally that could protect them from al-Qaeda and the excesses of a Shiite-dominated government.

Analysts fear that Sunnis now may be driven into the arms of al-Qaeda if they feel it is the only bulwark against a government hostile to their interests.

"It's possible they are now opening their communities to an al-Qaeda they didn't like," said Stephen Biddle, a national security analyst and professor at George Washington University.

Al-Qaeda has also been strengthened by the civil war in neighboring Syria. The war there has attracted foreigners who came to fight under the al-Qaeda banner. Some of those fighters may be spilling into western Iraq, analysts say.

The fighting in Syria has given al-Qaeda in Syria "a new lease on life," Jeffrey said.

"There are no peacekeepers here to stabilize this," Biddle said. "As a result, you get a very dangerous tinderbox."

Wait a minute...according to the OP, Obama declared the war was over. Was that just ANOTHER lie?

Love how you're always jumping in stupid-first. How exactly does Iraqi on Iraqi violence constitute the US vs Hussein's regime?

Or are you talking about him using the word "war" since we officially never declared war on Iraq?

 

[mad sweeney]

Al-Qaeda launches attacks in western Iraq

Al-Qaeda militants in key western Iraqi cities launched a series of brazen attacks against police stations and fought battles with government forces Thursday amid growing sectarian tensions between Sunnis and Shiites.

Al-Qaeda militants, emboldened by their powerful role in attempting to topple the government in neighboring Syria, have been exploiting a sense of alienation among many minority Sunnis in Iraq.

"It's a perfect storm that's been brewing for a long time," said Ryan Crocker, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq.

The violence was touched by recent incidents that have angered Sunnis and led to accusations that the Shiite-led government of Nouri al-Maliki has been heavy-handed in his treatment of political rivals.

"Maliki has taken a very serious and unfortunate step toward pushing a large percentage of the Sunni population to feel disenfranchised," said James Jeffrey, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Last week, government forces arrested a prominent Sunni, triggering a firefight that killed the lawmaker's brother and some of his bodyguards. Security forces then dismantled a Sunni protest camp in Ramadi.

Responding to Sunni concerns, the central government agreed to withdraw its forces from Anbar cities this week. But once the forces left, al-Qaeda militants surfaced in Ramadi and Fallujah, influential Sunni cities west of Baghdad.

The violence erupted just as a number of tribal leaders in recent weeks have been trying to work out a political compromise with Maliki's government, said Sterling Jensen, an analyst at the National Defense University's Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies.

"They were about to get a negotiated settlement," Jensen said. "For some reason, Maliki chose this time to go against the protesters."

Jensen said Maliki probably wanted to show strength in advance of national elections scheduled for April, Jensen said.

Ramadi and Fallujah are the major cities in Anbar, a Sunni region that has played an influential role in shaping Iraq's history.

After the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the region became a hotbed of the Sunni insurgency that fought American forces. In 2004, Fallujah had become a symbol of resistance to the U.S. presence until an American-led offensive drove militants from the city in bloody street fighting.

In 2006 and 2007, a network of tribal leaders in Ramadi who were backed by American forces led an effective revolt against al-Qaeda, helping to turn the tide of war in Iraq.

Today, tribal leaders in Anbar remain wary of al-Qaeda and have urged local police to fight the militants, analysts say.

However, they point out that it was the presence of Americans who gave tribal leaders the confidence to turn on al-Qaeda in 2006 and 2007. Sunni tribal leaders saw Americans as an ally that could protect them from al-Qaeda and the excesses of a Shiite-dominated government.

Analysts fear that Sunnis now may be driven into the arms of al-Qaeda if they feel it is the only bulwark against a government hostile to their interests.

"It's possible they are now opening their communities to an al-Qaeda they didn't like," said Stephen Biddle, a national security analyst and professor at George Washington University.

Al-Qaeda has also been strengthened by the civil war in neighboring Syria. The war there has attracted foreigners who came to fight under the al-Qaeda banner. Some of those fighters may be spilling into western Iraq, analysts say.

The fighting in Syria has given al-Qaeda in Syria "a new lease on life," Jeffrey said.

"There are no peacekeepers here to stabilize this," Biddle said. "As a result, you get a very dangerous tinderbox."

Wait a minute...according to the OP, Obama declared the war was over. Was that just ANOTHER lie?

This is interesting:

The fighting in Syria has given al-Qaeda in Syria "a new lease on life," Jeffrey said.

Something I've read is that whereas there was arms and militants flowing from Syria to Iraq, now it's the other way around.

AQ views that as the Crescent, or the Levant, or something like that. It's not about borders, the war for them has always been "Mesopotamia," ranging from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates-Tigris and the Persian Gulf.

Obama has more less allowed a power vacuum to foment in Syria.

With no USA troops in Iraq or northern Arabia, and no support for relatively secular or democratic forces, I'm not sure what they're supposed to be worried about.

I do believe I recall Obama on the stump repeatedly talking about how AQ had been defeated. Then Benghazi happened, and it became apparent, AQ or not, that terrorists were still bent on hitting US diplomatic, military and civilian targets abroad. It wasn't the video that was what they were really concerned about, it was the "spontaneous" element that they wanted to pursue and make stick.

So what are we supposed to do in Syria, support Assad? Support the rebels who are mostly Al Queada?

I'd say 1. coordinate a strategy with an emphasis on defeating AQ in the entire region and then execute it, and 2. speak publicly from the WH about the reality of this ongoing battle.

On No. 1, I think the strategy started under Bush, and more or less followed by Obama (though maybe Bush & Co. may have preferred betting on different horses), right or wrong, is that the authoritarian regimes were one of the primary causors of the terrorist groups, their ideology and their membership. So, good, bad, ugly, break up the balls on the global pool table and make something else happen. Assad has to go.

The opposite was true in Iraq. There was no appreciable AQ presence there before our invasion. Then they had a power struggle to enter into and driectly work against the West.

 

[mad sweeney]

How about we go back to 2003 and stay in Afghanistan to crush the Taliban and what parts of AQ we could get to there or Pakistan? Instead of ignoring that to go play with a shiny new toy that actually increased AQ's influence in the area in addition to letting the Taliban regroup and regain power, we should've kept our foot on their neck in a military action that was both righteous and fully supported.

 

[Christo]

How about we go back to 2003 and stay in Afghanistan to crush the Taliban and what parts of AQ we could get to there or Pakistan? Instead of ignoring that to go play with a shiny new toy that actually increased AQ's influence in the area in addition to letting the Taliban regroup and regain power, we should've kept our foot on their neck in a military action that was both righteous and fully supported.

 

[mad sweeney]

How about we go back to 2003 and stay in Afghanistan to crush the Taliban and what parts of AQ we could get to there or Pakistan? Instead of ignoring that to go play with a shiny new toy that actually increased AQ's influence in the area in addition to letting the Taliban regroup and regain power, we should've kept our foot on their neck in a military action that was both righteous and fully supported.

Which part is wrong genius?

 

[Christo]

How about we go back to 2003 and stay in Afghanistan to crush the Taliban and what parts of AQ we could get to there or Pakistan? Instead of ignoring that to go play with a shiny new toy that actually increased AQ's influence in the area in addition to letting the Taliban regroup and regain power, we should've kept our foot on their neck in a military action that was both righteous and fully supported.

Which part is wrong genius?

1) We can't go back in time, genius.

2) No matter how many troops we put in Afghanistan, we would never have crushed the Taliban. Just like the Brits couldn't in the 1800's and the Soviets couldn't in the 80s.

3) No war is righteous if there's no possibility to win.

 

[tri-man 47]

It's totally FUBAR right now. Just a lot of bad, tribal groups out there in the Middle East and central Africa. With aging populations in Europe, Japan, and the U.S., any thought of committing long-term resources in these expansive regions will be increasingly difficult and not likely. With increasing energy independence here at home, I suspect more and more people will lean toward hunkering down within our borders and letting 'em all fight it out. FUBAR.

 

[mad sweeney]

How about we go back to 2003 and stay in Afghanistan to crush the Taliban and what parts of AQ we could get to there or Pakistan? Instead of ignoring that to go play with a shiny new toy that actually increased AQ's influence in the area in addition to letting the Taliban regroup and regain power, we should've kept our foot on their neck in a military action that was both righteous and fully supported.

Which part is wrong genius?

1) We can't go back in time, genius.

2) No matter how many troops we put in Afghanistan, we would never have crushed the Taliban. Just like the Brits couldn't in the 1800's and the Soviets couldn't in the 80s.

3) No war is righteous if there's no possibility to win.

1 no ####, I missed it when you gave the same answer to the post that I was replying to that talked about going to 1979

2 maybe, maybe not but there's no question that our move into Iraq derailed our mission against AQ and Taliban

3 not true at all

4 your #1 is one of the stupidest things in a long line of stupid things you've ever said