What's the End -less Game, The Surge with a point of no return Options

[Hellfighter]

I'm not sure how many of you were following the hearings last week in which General Petraeus was giving his view of what should happen in Iraq's near future regarding the 'Surge' continuation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/10/usa.iraq

It's bad enough that a year ago the prez claimed/outlined a definitive conclusion could be drawn on how to proceed in Iraq based on benchmark achievements of the Surge by the end of Fall LAST YEAR. Now the Bush admin in their true hoodwinking fashion are again shifting the goal posts summarizing at the end of last week's analysis hearings that the Surge needed to go on at its current level through to the summer of 2009. Worst still as a General following orders, Petraeus could give no estimate on when a withdrawal from Iraq would be possible based on any pre-set accomplishments made.
Sheer insanity that the Bush admin would basically say because 'they say so' the war can go on as long as they like with NO end in sight and can ONLY end when they think their unattainable goals can be met -basically the Cheney Doctrine prevails -re:his own attitude towards the citizens desire to have their own opinion mean something in the admins decision making - as Cheney recently quoted ->"So?!"

Critics would argue "Oh we can't give the enemy a timetable!" .... ans more than likely these are the minority who number the 30% who are actually pro-war continuation and don't mind Americans relegated to a firefighting role in Iraq for McCain's 100 years of occupation dream - meanwhile 300,000+ Iraqi Security forces are doing who-knows-what currently. My own opinion has been getting these 'idle' troops prepared to lean fighting status is the whole key to the Americans being able to exit early. The way things are now its obvious to see there are no other conditions in which the Americans can pull-out under Bush or McCain's endgame perspective's.

The neo-con's scheme in invading Iraq to merely put a stranglehild on Iran blew up in their faces. Few people are in their corner now while they and the Bush admin continue to trumpet about how the war is solely about 'the fight for freedom' , 'the war to get rid of a dictator', 'the war to get WMDs that they knew were not there', 'the war on Terror' vs. a place where no al quaeda terrorists were originally located. Why does the budget give the impotent Iraqi Forces alone the same amount of $$$ that the entire Afghanistan Front is getting.

Clearly the people who think Iraq is the true Front to focus on in my opinion have no concept of strategy.
They would argue 'but Bin Laden said this is the central front of his plans'. Agreed - in one way. His existence rests in being safe in the Afghan / Pakistan border hills' sanctuary he gets - naturally his central front would be the diversionary 'tactics' he's employing in Iraq. It's no big secret that this ploy has been used by military tacticians throughout the ages - whn your main front is getting hammered [Afghanistan for Al Quaeda] sent a small harassment force to a far-off seemingly-critical point elsewhere to draw the enemy's focus away from where he's about to achieve victory [in this case the chaotic mess in Iraq] . What this does is divide the forces of those sucked into the 'trap' resulting in no effectiveness now on the two fronts he's waging the war on. Bum Laden knows the minions he has in Iraq are disposable -their only purpose there now is to hang on as long as possible and raise hell before getting smoked themselves. It's one thing to believe wiping out this 'foot soldier' contingent of Al quaeda will be the end of the war but its another to believe that Bush will then say 'ok let's go home'.

His admin is determined to stay in Iraq [while they have power] until -however long that takes- their is a solid pro-democracy govt. running Iraq. Looking at ALL the political dynamics that is the actual reality in Iraq, don't hold your breath. Iran is backing all the various Shiite players in the leadership in Iraq, the Sunnis [which most of the rest of the Arab nations back] are on shakey ground regarding how much power they can get.
The reality is al quaeda suicide bomber and assasin operatives will always be free to stir up trouble in Iraq even if their fighters are wiped out. I wish I was wrong and a choir and angels conclusion would happen very soon, but 6 years later no-one can see anything but an Iran influenced Iraqi 'coalition' finally prevailing.

As I see it, Bum Laden has no plans to have his fighters fighting 'in our neighbourhoods' - massive terrorist plots -yes. His goal of bleeding the American economy is being attained -someone in last week's surge Analysis hearing claimed the war in Iraq alone was costing $5000 per second..... [Bush admin for how long has been claiming Iraqi oil revenues would pay for the war???]
http://ethicsdaily.org/article_detail.cfm?AID=10274
The army is at breaking point; [Bush admin for how long claimed the numbers of deployed forces in Iraq would be significantly reduced in the early stages of the war then.../ just around the corner / next year since things are getting better now / next year when things will get better / next year IF things get better]
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article2782.html

What are the alternatives? Let the Iraqis know they need to figure out their own destiny - Al quaeda would have a status at best as s--t disturbers; it seems obvious to me that the Shiites and Sunnis wouldn't tear off the heads of any al quaeda bum bold enough to step forward and declare they wanted to run OPENLY things in Iraq amidst any settled power sharing role amongst Iraqi factions.
Iraqi Forces need to follow through with their operations to show they're in command, until that realization is taken care off, as I see it the whole drama there has mickey mouse connotations. The Surge alone is NOT the solution -Endgame needs to be put out on the table to bring a dose of harsh reality to all the players.


This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 04/13/08 8:27am