Anbar to be Handed Over to Iraqi Control
January 11th, 2008 at 12:36am Mark Noonan
WASHINGTON (AP) - Iraq’s western province of Anbar, hotbed of the Sunni Arab insurgency for the first four years of the war, will be returned to Iraqi control in March, a senior U.S. general said Thursday.
In a telephone interview from Iraq, Marine Maj. Gen. Walter E. Gaskin, commander of the roughly 35,000 Marine and Army forces in Anbar, said levels of violence have dropped so significantly—coupled with the growth and development of Iraqi security forces in the province—that Anbar is ready to be handed back to the Iraqis.Thus far, nine of 18 Iraqi provinces have reverted to Iraqi control, most recently the southern province of Basra in December. The process has gone substantially slower than the Bush administration once hoped, mainly because of obstacles to developing sufficient Iraqi police and army forces. But Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that he expects the process to continue.
Weren’t some people saying something about the war being lost?
Entry Filed under: War on Terror
12 Comments
1. IronMyShirts!!! | January 11th, 2008 at 4:27 am
///sarcasm///
Sooo, all provinces turned over to Iraqi control, protected by militias armed by Bushitler. I wonder how much he, Cheney, Halliburton, and Blackwater profited off this venture…
///sarcasm off///
2. IronMyShirts!!! | January 11th, 2008 at 4:33 am
Why is my comment awaiting moderation?
3. neocon | January 11th, 2008 at 7:49 am
>>Weren’t some people saying something about the war being lost? - Mark<<
Yes they were Mark, and very soon we’ll be reading more negative spin. Diana recently implied that the hostile actions of a few “mercenaries”, and the fact that all benchmarks have not been met were reasons to claim defeat.
As Romney said in last nights debate, this war position of the Democrats will hurt them in the general. God Bless the Iraqis and their continued efforts towards a more stable and secure country. The continued Iraqi efforts will not only improve their lives, but will hurt the Democrats here at home, thusly improving our lives.
It’s a win-win!
4. Bigfoot | January 11th, 2008 at 7:51 am
Iron, I had the same problem a few days ago. I miss being able to use Typekey here (although it enables me to comment on other sites).
Back to topic: This is good news, and hard to imagine about a year ago. I’m surprised at the developments in Basra. I thought that Mookie and his minions were still messing things up in that province.
5. neocon | January 11th, 2008 at 7:56 am
Hey, guess what. Here’s something else the liberals were wrong about.
A new survey estimates that 151,000 Iraqis died from violence in the three years following the U.S.-led invasion of the country. Roughly 9 out of 10 of those deaths were a consequence of U.S. military operations, insurgent attacks and sectarian warfare.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/09/AR2008010902793.html
6. js | January 11th, 2008 at 8:48 am
151k Iraqis are a lot of people, but you have to realise, most of them were killed by non-US Military personnel.
It might seem logical to amplify the reality of this issue, but the truth is, in the 4 years we have been there, actual deaths have declined. Saddam kille more than 40k people a year while he was in power.
It would be totally untrue to claim the Iraqi people are worse off today than they were under Saddam Hussen.
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/02/iraq99.htm
7. Mark Noonan | January 11th, 2008 at 10:06 am
neocon,
Thanks for bringing that up - I knew all along, of course, that the older studies were bogus. Nice to have some confirmation.
8. Mark Noonan | January 11th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Iron,
We’re still not sure why some comments go to moderation…we think it might be some glitch with the blog program…or Cheney messing ’round just for fun…
9. Reg Dwight | January 11th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Mark:
In November of 2006 your called Rumsfeld, who fought against the surge “probably the greatest Secretary of Defense this nation has ever had.”
McCain who wanted Bush/Rumsfeld to increase troop strength years before they did it, calls Rumsfeld a “failure.”
Who is right? You or McCain?
10. Mark Noonan | January 11th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Reg,
In a sense, both were right - Remember what Rumsfeld wanted to do: revitalise the military by taking it into the 21st century. A lot of mossbacked generals and admirals opposed him on that, because there a thing rather too common amongst such leaders…they don’t like change. They like to keep fighting the last war…and so, when Rumsfeld came in, they were still building weapons systems designed to stop Soviet armoured divisions in the Fulda Gap or ships designed to for a fleet action against the Soviet navy, rather than respond quickly to global crisis. Rumsfeld managed to go a long way towards modernising our armed forces. This, in and of itself, was a great thing to do.
Now, as to the surge - Rumsfeld wanted to into Iraq sooner, with less troops, and get out faster. There was much to commend itself to this plan, and it was the one I favored…but once we decided to do our dance with the UN - to please Tony Blair and in an absurd hope that the global left would actually be happy with us if we did it - we felt had to go in with a larger force against a supposedly better prepared Saddamite enemy…as it turned out, the Saddamite army was an empty shell and we knocked it out in three weeks…but by having such a quick victory, we inherited control over an entire country without the people immediately in place to govern such a situation.
The rest, as they say, is history.
11. Reg Dwight | January 11th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Mark:
“Mossbacked generals and admirals”?
Aren’t these the very same men and women who have led our troops in Vietnam, the Cold War, Granada, Panama, Gulf War I and II? I thought you Republicans supported our military and their leaders.
“They like to keep fighting the last war…and so, when Rumsfeld came in, they were still building weapons systems designed to stop Soviet armoured divisions in the Fulda Gap or ships designed to for a fleet action against the Soviet navy, rather than respond quickly to global crisis.”
Without the weapons systems we designed in the 1970s and fielded in the 1980s to defeat the Soviet Army on the plains of Northern Germany we wouldn’t have had the tools, training or expertise to roll hundreds of miles out of Kuwait into the heart of Iraq and defeat the enemy. It was the preparation to fight the “last war” that enabled us to win both wars in the Gulf. Funny you cannot see that. You think the Army and Marines need to be all “light and nimble”? Troops running around in Humvees in Bagdhad without armor has been a tremendous problem, perhaps you’ve read about it. Troops rolling thru Baghdad in M1s and M2s sends a more powerful message.
“Now, as to the surge - Rumsfeld wanted to into Iraq sooner, with less troops, and get out faster. There was much to commend itself to this plan, and it was the one I favored…but once we decided to do our dance with the UN - to please Tony Blair and in an absurd hope that the global left would actually be happy with us if we did it - we felt had to go in with a larger force against a supposedly better prepared Saddamite enemy…as it turned out, the Saddamite army was an empty shell and we knocked it out in three weeks…but by having such a quick victory, we inherited control over an entire country without the people immediately in place to govern such a situation.”
Wow, where do I begin? Clearly neither you nor Rummy understand war fighting is a labor-intensive business. If you’re going to occupy a country of 25 million people, you’ve got to have boots on the ground. The way you minimize U.S. casualties is you fight aggressively and with overwhelming strength (the Powell Doctrine you might recall). And when you start up the road to Baghdad, you’ve got to have enough soldiers and Marines to protect your supply lines so men and women driving diesel tanker trucks and supply trucks don’t get shot and get captured. When you get into Baghdad, you have enough people to flood that city, to show people who is in charge and who will provide security. It’s 6.5 million people and Rumsfeld did get that. And it is clear you, to this day, do not get it.
A light force like you and Rummy advocate (50K troops?) would have meant even more casualties. You guys always think that technology will take care of all of this. The more technology you have, the fewer guys you need on the ground, that sort of BS. That’s true for some missions, but it’s not true when you’re about to undertake a counterinsurgency campaign in a country of 25 million people. The idea that all Iraqis were going to dance in the street and welcome us when we got to Baghdad was insane. The last time the Iraqis danced in the street was the afternoon of September 11th, 2001.
“The rest, as they say, is history.”
The rest is all spin.
12. purchase xanax&hellip | February 1st, 2008 at 3:03 pm
purchase xanax
poker games purchase xanax poker tables life insurance leads