President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
52%↑
48%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
60%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
June 04, 2007 06:35 AM UTC
21 Comments
As you know Zappatero, the goal of this Bush-Wacking Administration was never to achieve success in Iraq but to redistribute the remaining 10% of wealth in this Country that was not already being controlled by it’s wealthy friends.
More specifically, this Administration is not about fighting terrorism, eliminating WMD’s, installing democracy in Iraq, or defending the American people. This Administration is about one thing and one thing only, greed. This Administration has perpetuated and proliferated the corporate war-machine-for-profit and the agenda of it’s wealthy friends, period.
Besides, President Bush is already way beyond Iraq and well on his way to restarting the Cold War with President Putin of Russia while Cheney is simultaneously drumming up support for his plan to bomb Iran. Cheney’s Halliburton can look forward to future multi-billion-dollar contracts in Tehran and Moscow well beyond 2008.
as it applies to Iraq. What we got with the surge was nothing more than a change of tactics. Bush will not stop this until he is removed from office or the funding is completely stopped.
Just a change in troop deployment, really.
Three asinine comments in a row.
The surge is working. See the calm of Ramadi and the organic anti-AQIZ actions of more and more local tribes.
The change in strategy was a change in strategy – a move from training-first (which only a few do well, and they wear funny green hats) to security-first. And you’ve got a General in charge who wrote the book on that strategy for counter insurgency.
Of course, that follows that the second comment denying even the first is even dumber by a degree, but let’s add the implication that a change in troop deployment is not indicative of either to the mix. Yep, apparently that muliplies the previous asinine comment even further.
Fellas, quit talking as if you know what you’re talking about when you so obviously don’t have the slightest clue. We’ll all be smarter.
Third most deadly month in Iraq for American soldiers since the invasion began…
Iraqi sectarian casualties “down” because they’ve stopped counting bombings as sectarian violence….
No more of Baghdad effectively under control now than when the surge started in April… (You can pick a random city or state and say it’s doing well, but the reality is that the “surge” is only about Baghdad, and that’s not better at all.)
Petraeus has all but admitted that his original September “we’ll know by then” date has slipped to December at earliest. By that measure alone, the “surge” is failing.
The best news to come out of Iraq is the anti-AQIZ motion, as you mentioned – and it’s only very very recently that people here have talked about joining that discussion. I am also heartened to hear that we’re finally talking about talking to Iraqi citizens instead of just attempting to impose calm with too few troops and an unwilling Iraqi “security force”: it’s about time. It also wasn’t part of the “surge” – more likely it was Sec. Casey and our new “War Czar” ganging up and overriding Cheney while Petraeus provides talking-points cover for Bush.
It remains to be seen just what is actually working in Iraq. One thing is for certain – it isn’t the “surge”.
You mean with more troops in the field, at less-secure operating locations, the enemy is able to score more “points?” Wow, that wasn’t entirely predicted when this all began, by *everyone* involved.
If you look at factors *other* than the enemy scoreboard, however, there are advantages to the Surge, even at this early point. For one, it’s not even at full strength yet – the manning change is just now finishing up. Second, Ramadi isn’t just some “random city.” It’s the capital of Al Anbar province, and the heart of the Sunni insurgency. It was the most dangerous city outside of Baghdad. The fact that you call it a “random city” speaks volumes of what you *don’t* know about Iraq.
In fact, Ramadi is the key. 4 provinces in the South have long been turned over to Iraqi security forces directly. Recently, 3 provinces in the north have been, as well. That’s 7 of 18. Kirkuk (also no minor city) will vote later this year on whether to join Kurdistan proper – in a free, fair, and democratic election. Iraq is becoming peaceful from the outside-in. First north and south, now perhaps even from the “Wild West.” It’s almost a counter force to the “Oil-spot Strategy” (though some wouldn’t even dare call it a tactic), which aims at security from the inside-out.
In effect, however, the quasi-spontaneous growth of self-defense among the tribes acts in much the same way – spreading the *will* for security along the river to Ramadi, and even into places like the AQIZ stronghold north of Fallujah. That *is* part of the “surge” strategy – in fact, the primary part: Security First. And, indeed, it’s Proof of Concept.
But at least the Sayers of Nay are on record as to what side they will be on in this war until the bitter end.
but it does clearly say that Baghdad is far from secure with only 1/3 of the neighborhoods under control, and that the goal was to have the city secure by July. That obviously won’t happen.
(Article is at NY Times, registration required.)
Whether this ties into the surge or not, I don’t know, but it tends to undermine the idea that we’re having any great success in Iraq since the surge began.
That’s it Yoke, yummpin yimmini, you have a handle on Iraq don’t you? You, Bush, Cheney, Patreas, and 28% of the population are right and the remaining 72% of the population are wrong. Of course, included among our 72% are all formal field commanders in Iraq who now openly oppose our presence there.
Do you honestly believe that you can undue centuries of religious sectarian differences and fanaticism through force? Military confrontation is the answer to all global problems isn’t it?
Are the “former field commanders” among the “28%,” as well as the current one who *wrote the book* on successful counterinsurgency.
Also conveniently left out is that if 72% of the population thinks professional wrestling is real, they would still be wrong.
Undue [sic] centuries of fanaticism? Like in Japan? No, that didn’t work. Clearly military confrontation isn’t the answer to everything, but military enforcement of security in Iraq CLEARLY is the answer to the question of “How do we prevent Iraq from becoming a failed state like Afghanistan was in the 1990s?” Because that’s the question Clintonians don’t want asked, the one that the 72% you cite haven’t bothered to consider, and the ONLY question that matters now.
have read in this thread have all been posted by Yokel. He apparently assumes that he knows all there is about Iraq and related militaty tactics and strategy. Gee, how come he isn’t in charge of the forces in Iraq. Obviously the military has overlooked his vast talents.
Yokel was in Iraq flying helicopter missions, which would give him a better sense of how things are going.
Easy to armchair quarterback from a cushy office chair, isn’t it?
agree with your conclusion. It gives him perspective with regard to the area to which he is assigned, but not necessarily the entire theater of operations. In that regard, his opinion is no more valid than others. Are you saying none may have an opinion unless they are in the military?
But getting the true sense of what the military is accomplishing in Iraq is extremely difficult from the media in the US.
Yokel would know better than us how the military is run, functions, what the daily missions are, how successful they are, what the feeling of his fellow soldiers are and what the level of frustration is with the officers (if any).
He would know more the mood of the Iraqis and when he says “Ramadi is the key. 4 provinces in the South have long been turned over to Iraqi security forces directly. Recently, 3 provinces in the north have been, as well. That’s 7 of 18.” I believe him – but I’ve been reading his posts for awhile and he makes good points that can’t be refuted often.
I am sure that there is a way for Yokel to verify his status as a US Army (?) Helicopter pilot for those of us that are skeptical.
I dont rely on the US media for my news on Iraq. I try and draw from as many international sources as possible and reporters that I find to be credible.
“Yokel would know better than us how the military is run, functions, what the daily missions are, how successful they are, what the feeling of his fellow soldiers are and what the level of frustration is with the officers (if any).”
Would he? I assume, being a pilot that he is an officer himself, at least a warrant officer. As such he has a limited scope of who he deals with, who he takes orders from, who he gives orders to, what news he gets, what areas of the country he visits, etc. All those things you list off are presumptuous and are possibly true but on a very limited scope. That is assuming of course that during his tour, during his limited internet usage, he would want to address us here at coloradopols.
His posts can be refuted, but his belligerant tone and red herring responses really make posting an ongoing response ridiculous. That, and of course his schedule. Who knows when he is going to post next?
I don’t know if Yokel is a pilot in Iraq or if he is a fat pimply teenager playing Dungeons and Dragons all day. If he says he’s a pilot, I’ll believe him until I have reason not to.
I like his posts and what he says. His viewpoint helps illustrate how complex the Iraq issue is and how important it is for our troops to be there right now.
Unfortunately, because of the nature of the work I do, I can’t exactly go too in-depth on things. There are a few pictures from my flights over at photobucket if you want some proof, but since the network blockifies that site here, I’ll have to get time in the next couple days to go pull the links from an un-blockified network.
Yeah, I get a little frustrated sometimes with folks. If you were winning a war people were so intent upon losing, you probably would be, too. But beyond that, it seems folks are so disingenuous in their criticisms. They claim to care about what’s going on over here, and then say that Ramadi is just some random city. Maybe it’s just me, I don’t know.
I do my level best to argue points that anyone can read in the newspaper. I think where that fails is that things jump out of articles to me that wouldn’t for anyone who hasn’t been here. For example – I fly pretty much all over the country. We don’t work for a geographic division, it’s a more over-arching operation on my side of things. And being a pilot, (and one who works in a job that tends to have to flex to time-sensitive, short-notice missions at that), I tend to think geographically. The location of an event in an article is almost as important as what happened.
For example, even before the President used the “80% of the violence within 30 miles of Baghdad” in the State of the Union, I’d mentioned a similar trend elsewhere (though not with the numbers). But the big one is the Ramadi/Al Anbar thing. The fact that that area, the heart of the Sunni insurgency and the “Wild West,” is getting significantly calmer speaks volumes of what’s going on here.
Add the West-to-East pacification trend down the Euphrates and the North and South trends at gradual turnover and democratization to the “Surge” in Baghdad proper, and I’m going to go out on a limb and say that the war will be finally won in the “Baghdad Rings,” or the seams that develop between operations in the city and pacification coming from the outside, pushing the terrorists to the in-between areas of both AOs. The trend is already starting now, and the “Surge” hasn’t even fully begun, nor has nearly-organic pacification process taken full effect. That, if the Democratic Congress will suck it up and let it continue, is where the war will end. Getting to that point is the exit strategy.
Oh, and I’m in the Air Force. The Army is lame.
but my father would say the air force is for woosies 😉
I dont mind not knowing your name, your rank (I assume officer due to what you say you do), or your mission. I just wish there were a way to confirm you are who you say you are, ie, an air force member in Iraq. What I dont like is anonymous posters claiming some sort of expertise in a really sensitive area. Yes, you may be an air force officer in Iraq. If that is the case, and you are geographically limit-less in your operations you may have all the expertise you need to school us laymen and women. But at the same time, you could be a regular person like the rest of us, reading stories that are glorifying the war cutting and pasting them into your own words. Some of your editorializing reads like republican talking points. When they are interspersed with what you say you see it is tough for me to seperate the two. In other words, how much of a blind eye are you turning to the bad things, while you are talking up the good? With that out of the way, on to paragraph number two.
How do you win a war against an idea? Im being serious. It is impossible to win a war against an intangible, non-national, nebulous term such as “terrorism.” So, when you say that we are winning what do you mean? I dont think they are being disingenuous. I think this goes back to what I was wondering about how much good is going on rather than bad. There may be good things going on Ramadi, but there was recently an attack in the kurdish region. And lets not forget what started this thread.
I read and hear that the Shia are greater perpetrators of sectarian violence, and by extension, terrorism than the Sunni. Thats not to say that te Sunni are are completely blameless, but the Shia are the ones with the most amount of power, and, so I read, the death squads. Police are planting IEDs and the new acronym I heard about, but cant remember, the Mahdi army is still around, and it seems that everytime I turn on the radio there is a new subsidiary of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. A radius of 30 miles around Baghdad maybe getting calmer, but violence seems much more diffuse.
When will the war be won? Bush recently likened our occupation of Iraq to the DMZ in Korea. I posted an article recently about the parliament gaining enough votes to pass a binding resolution telling the US to leave. If that vote passes, do you think we will leave? I ask this because Iraq is a sovereign nation, and as such we should accomodate their wishes. When will the surge begin? And organic pacification seems like a pipe dream at this point.
How do you win a war against an idea? With an idea. Now, the war on “terrorism” is a bit of a misnomer at best, and outright category error at worst. It’s a war against Islamism. (I think that’s probably the best term – it acknoledges that it’s not Islam – just as Alexander’s “Hellenistic” expansion wasn’t “Hellenic” – but it also acknowledges the ideology from which it grows) And how do you win that? Well, you have to offer an alternative – the President’s grand strategy when this whole thing kicked off nigh on 6 years ago was to offer “democracy.” As maligned as that vision has become, it’s still the best solution anyone’s talking about to the very real problem of Islamism.
The war will be won when it’s won. They said the same thing about the Cold War in the 1950s – yet its apparent open-endedness didn’t seem to stop us from winning it then.
The war in Iraq will also be won when it’s won. I’ve already predicted the manner in which the Sunni Insurgency will be defeated. The Shia part, well, that’s a bit trickier – We’re going to have to call out Iran to win that. Having said that, it’s not all lost there, either. The regime in Iran is showing serious signs of internal weakness. Sadr’s pals in Iraq have delusions of power – and if the political route is maintained as the route to that power, they’ll hold to it; you just have to make sure that is the only route they have. And, even though the Shia demographic is huge, having been a secular country, you’re not going to get a super-super-majority of the Shias to support radical Shia Sharia (theocracy – I just liked the alliteration) to overrule the more secular, modern Shia on top of the Sunni and Kurd votes of “no, I don’t think so.”
In short, it takes guts and hope.
Am I am who I say I am? Well, what’s the alternative? Warcraft is too engaging for some kid to “play” my part, and the Republican Party is to stupid and/or busy conspiring to bring about martial law to invent plants on any blog, let alone this one.
We are between Iraq and a hard place.
If we withdraw our troops, the Iraqi government will collapse and sectarian violence will grow to Biblical proportions. If we withdraw, it seems unrealistic to believe that Sunnis and Shittes will suddenly say “What were we thinking?” and stop fighting.
We get 40% of our oil from the Persian Gulf. 500,000 barrels a day from Iraq, 1.5 million barrels a day from Saudi Arabia. Withdrawal from Iraq and collapse of the Iraqi government will result in termination of that oil and $3.10/gallon gas will look like a bargain. The guesses that I’ve read predict $120/barrel oil prices if the Persian Gulf decends into chaos. Doesn’t seem far-fetched to me.
Worst case, Iran torpedos a tanker after withdrawal and/or Israel and Iran start exchanging blows.
Best case, we maintain a 30,000 man permanent presence in Iraq, just like we do in South Korea.
The Bush Administration has offered up the following reasons for invading Iraq.
1. 911/opposing terrorism
2. Eliminating Weapons of Mass Destruction
3. Opposing civil rights violations
4. Ending sectarian violence
5. Stabilizing the Middle East
6. Securing U.S. oil interests
I’m certain that the families of the 650,000 Iraqi civilians killed in this war would be delighted to know that their loved-ones died over U.S. oil interests. The Hussein regime always sold their oil to the U.S. as it is of no value to them unsold.
Do you realize that all of the oil pumped through the Alaskan pipeline is exported? The oil from the Alaskan pipeline alone would reduce our dependency on Iraqi oil and without bloodshed.