Iraq War Over?

[Mr. Scott]

Since the surge by American troops in 2007 violence in Iraq has fallen to nearly nothing. Foreign troops are no longer even needed in the cities anymore and the green zone is under Iraqi control. American deaths are basically none and the Iraqi people seem to have almost completely taken control of their nation.

I would consider this a successful war. I mean, Iraq is fairly stable now, except for the al-queda bombings a few weeks back, and it seems that there is virtually no violence anymore.
Would you agree?

However, the media seems to not even mention Iraq anymore, simply because it is no longer interesting (not chaotic).



Hahahahaha

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[s.rwitt]

All things considered, the current state of the Iraq War is impressive when compared to other counterinsurgencies in the past.

But it's all just temporary, right Erik?

[Dr Zoidberg]

Until the vast majority of Allied troops are out of the country, and the local security forces have a firm grip on maintaing peace and stability, I think its too early to say the war is over. But feel free to rehang the "Mission Accomplished" banner if you're feeling optimistic.

That said though, I don't think its ever really BEEN a war. The minute the regime collapsed it became a peace-stabilisation/keeping and counter-insurgency operation; not a war in the traditional sense of the word.

[Exarch]

Since the surge by American troops in 2007 violence in Iraq has fallen to nearly nothing. Foreign troops are no longer even needed in the cities anymore and the green zone is under Iraqi control. American deaths are basically none and the Iraqi people seem to have almost completely taken control of their nation.

I would consider this a successful war. I mean, Iraq is fairly stable now, except for the al-queda bombings a few weeks back, and it seems that there is virtually no violence anymore.
Would you agree?).

well i guess that depends on definition of success
given the continued bombings that continue in iraq these days, i' say the situation is still qutie fragile.
not to mention the shenanigans by irani secret services and saudis and americans playing their game of thrones...

However, the media seems to not even mention Iraq anymore, simply because it is no longer interesting (not chaotic

that's cuz most coalition soldiers are safely tucked away in superbases well away from the carnage of suicide bombings,
the focuz now is on iran and pakistan, defined by the US media/admin as 'afpak theatre'

[Mr. Scott]

well i guess that depends on definition of success
given the continued bombings that continue in iraq these days, i' say the situation is still qutie fragile.
not to mention the shenanigans by irani secret services and saudis and americans playing their game of thrones...


that's cuz most coalition soldiers are safely tucked away in superbases well away from the carnage of suicide bombings,
the focuz now is on iran and pakistan, defined by the US media/admin as 'afpak theatre'

carnage of the suicide bombings? The suicide bombings are very very rare now. THe latest ones did claim over a hundred Iraqi lives, but that was it (it was an al-queda bombing). There has been very few or no suicide bombings lately.

The soldiers are inside the bases because they are no longer needed in Iraqi cities. The Iraqi military has iraq under control.

But feel free to rehang the "Mission Accomplished" banner if you're feeling optimistic.

I just might do that....

[Dr Zoidberg]

carnage of the suicide bombings? The suicide bombings are very very rare now. THe latest ones did claim over a hundred Iraqi lives, but that was it (it was an al-queda bombing). There has been very few or no suicide bombings lately.

Are you sure about that, or is it simply that the media no longer reports them because its 'old news'. Afghanistan and Pakistan are the current 'soup de jour'.

76 in 2009 is still alot to me (about 79 too many). The latest was on Oct 25th, under a month ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...raq_since_2003

Yes, yes, I know, its wikipedia but its the best I can do on the fly. I'm sure somebody has access to better stats.

[Hunter Makoy]

Are you sure about that, or is it simply that the media no longer reports them because its 'old news'. Afghanistan and Pakistan are the current 'soup de jour'.

76 in 2009 is still alot to me (about 79 too many). The latest was on Oct 25th, under a month ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...raq_since_2003

Yes, yes, I know, its wikipedia but its the best I can do on the fly. I'm sure somebody has access to better stats.

So your not happy until there are -3 suicide bombings a year?

Anyway, the big thing about that is not whether 76 is a low or acceptable number, but that it is alot lower then the 257 from 2008 and the 442 from 2007.

[Exarch]

what mystifies me is that u get some US soldiers that dont want to deploy to iraq-like that guy who shot up fort hood- whereas ppl like caelius would have us believe that soldiers based in iraq do nothing but "do yoga, eat ice cream" etc. who wouldnt want a cushy posting like that then eh?

[Ænema]

It's not even a war.. The war is over. It's a nation building mission if you will.

In that case no it's not over yet, in the sense that the Iraqis STILL have to step up and take back their country. We're still cutting our teeth for that country.

what mystifies me is that u get some US soldiers that dont want to deploy to iraq-like that guy who shot up fort hood- whereas ppl like caelius would have us believe that soldiers based in iraq do nothing but "do yoga, eat ice cream" etc. who wouldnt want a cushy posting like that then eh?

Care to show me where he said that?

[motiv-8]

Major Hasan had specific and personalized reasons for not wanting to deploy that had little to do with the made-up things you say. Anyway...

The conflict in Iraq is not over. Units are still being cycled in and out. The difference is that their roles are becoming increasingly non-participatory -- training, advising, and supervision. They are there, just outside the cities, to help out when needed. The new Iraqi army is having its training wheels taken off, and eventually they will be riding by themselves and taking charge of the country. The continued development of Iraqi political life is also an important factor -- the newly-revised electoral laws were a significant milestone and new political parties and blocs are forming that represent the many different leanings that Iraqis have. Finally, economic activity has resumed as a result of the vastly improved security situation, while as a whole the country can start enjoying revenue from renewed oil flow and development contracts, though these latter are and will remain a contentious issue among Iraqis.

That seems to be, as far as I can tell, the current situation.

[Exarch]

technicalyl vietnam wasnt a war either since congress hadnt formally declared war;
these days when the topic of iraq comes up, the same word that was used to describe vietnam is used: Quagmire.
no, not the guy from family Guy
the real original quagmire

[motiv-8]

Nobody with any knowledge of what's going on, with an added dose of sense, would assemble a sentence containing both "Iraq" and "quagmire." That's quite frankly utter BS.

[Heathen Hammer]

Nobody with any knowledge of what's going on, with an added dose of sense, would assemble a sentence containing both "Iraq" and "quagmire." That's quite frankly utter BS.

Just because for some reason media prefers to ignore it, does not mean that everything is perfect in there. Didn't they have a bombing just a week ago?

[s.rwitt]

what mystifies me is that u get some US soldiers that dont want to deploy to iraq-like that guy who shot up fort hood- whereas ppl like caelius would have us believe that soldiers based in iraq do nothing but "do yoga, eat ice cream" etc. who wouldnt want a cushy posting like that then eh?

Speaking strictly from personal experience, my unit is scheduled to deploy sometime next year either to Iraq or Afghanistan. Everyone I've spoken to dreads going to Iraq because the last time they went (2007-2008) they were stationed somewhere outside Ramadi and spent 7 months doing pointless patrols and not a shot was fired. The reason everyone wants to go to A-stan is because that's where the "action" is, not because it's 'cushy". This has come both from those who deployed to Iraq in 2005 (where a fair amount of combat was had) as well as those, such as myself, who have yet to deploy. Again, this is only what I've observed in my own individual unit and by no means represents the feelings of all or even the majority of US servicemen.

------------------

Just because for some reason media prefers to ignore it, does not mean that everything is perfect in there. Didn't they have a bombing just a week ago?

"Everything not being perfectly fine" =/= a quagmire. How about next time you actually address something he posts?

[WrathofTulkas]

Like others have said "War" is over. The only people we are at war with are Al-Qaeda. If elections keep being more and more peaceful and the Iraqi government boots out corruption (I can only hope its so corrupt) Maybe then it will be stable, but if it continues to be corrupt well then... I think a fully free democracy in the middle east (other than israel) is still a dream.

ITS THE OIL just ask Mike Ross =/

[Bovril]

Now that the mission accomplished banners are being rehung, am I alowed to ask what the mission was? It clearly can't have been disarming Saddams WMDs, preventing Iraqi agression or avoiding the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. So what was it?

[Ænema]

Now that the mission accomplished banners are being rehung, am I alowed to ask what the mission was? It clearly can't have been disarming Saddams WMDs, preventing Iraqi agression or avoiding the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. So what was it?

Saddam moved his WMDS to Syria

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[s.rwitt]

Now that the mission accomplished banners are being rehung, am I alowed to ask what the mission was? It clearly can't have been disarming Saddams WMDs, preventing Iraqi agression or avoiding the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. So what was it?

If you're referring to the first "mission accomplished" incident, the "mission" was the defeat of the Iraqi Army and sucessful invasion. It was stated so at the time. And that mission was an overwhelming success, a textbook example of how to invade a country and destroy a military. The ensueing war, the counterinsurgency, was messy and initially poorly handled but, again, it's impressive that in less than six years such a determined insurgency was routed. There are two reasons this happened, the Sunni Awakening and the surge.

[Mr. Scott]

If you're referring to the first "mission accomplished" incident, the "mission" was the defeat of the Iraqi Army and sucessful invasion. It was stated so at the time. And that mission was an overwhelming success, a textbook example of how to invade a country and destroy a military. The ensueing war, the counterinsurgency, was messy and initially poorly handled but, again, it's impressive that in less than six years such a determined insurgency was routed. There are two reasons this happened, the Sunni Awakening and the surge.

very good!(+) rep

[Cougar109]

If you're referring to the first "mission accomplished" incident, the "mission" was the defeat of the Iraqi Army and sucessful invasion. It was stated so at the time. And that mission was an overwhelming success, a textbook example of how to invade a country and destroy a military. The ensueing war, the counterinsurgency, was messy and initially poorly handled but, again, it's impressive that in less than six years such a determined insurgency was routed. There are two reasons this happened, the Sunni Awakening and the surge.

I believe he was asking exactly what our mission, as in why we were there in the first place. At least that's what I gathered.