Iraq, the unraveling (IV): What he said

Tue, 04/14/2009 - 1:17pm

If you haven't read Marc Lynch's summary of what seems to be going on in Iraq, please do so now. 'Nuff said.

Thomas E. Ricks | Permalink | | Comments? Login or register
( filed under: )


Advertisement

 

...What he said...

by dazed and confused on Tue, 04/14/2009 - 3:41pm

Do you support a concept of (more or less) leaving the Iraqis to stew in their own juices should 'unraveling' accelerate? How should we 'side' in such instance? Thanks.

Cynic's view

by msnow0201 on Tue, 04/14/2009 - 4:19pm

Tying in the post on removing Sadaam was a favor to the Iranians, maybe someone thought we should make it clear to the Arabs that the U.S. is their (and their oil fields) only protection against the Persians. Sectarian strife and Iranian threats are great reasons to keep a 100k troops positioned right in the middle of the largest oil fields in the world.

"As you ask me today"

by Don Bacon on Tue, 04/14/2009 - 5:59pm

Odierno replied, "As you ask me today, I believe it's a 10 that we will be gone by 2011."

"As you ask me today" means that Odierno's belief applies only "today". The door is open. It did not come with a lifetime guarantee.

So the Huffington headline "Odierno Certain That All US Troops Will Be Out Of Iraq By 2011" is bogus, as is Lynch's observation that Odierno's comment means that "the U.S. is firmly committed to removing its troops by the end of 2011".

Ask Odierno again tomorrow, or the next day.

"As you ask me today" is simply another way of stating what has been the US policy since mid-2003, and that is that the withdrawal of US forces depends upon the situation. The facts on the ground (with some help from the US military) have dictated a continuing US military presence up to the present time, and will continue to do so, in my opinion.

The Iraqis will tell us

by Don Bacon on Tue, 04/14/2009 - 7:10pm

WASHINGTON, April 14, 2009 – U.S. soldiers could remain in Mosul, Iraq, past June 30. . .Army Col. Gary Volesky, commander of the 1st Cavalry Division’s 3rd Heavy Brigade Combat Team, said in a video news conference from Iraq that the Iraqi government will make that determination. --DOD

more

by Don Bacon on Tue, 04/14/2009 - 10:47pm

"If we believe that we'll need troops to maintain presence in some of the cities [after 30 June], we'll recommend that, but, ultimately, it's the decision of Prime Minister [Nuri al-] Maliki," said Odierno, who was speaking from a U.S. base in Iraq.

What boundaries for the 'start out now' proposition?

by Walking Wounded on Wed, 04/15/2009 - 12:10pm

Lynch's summary doesn't invite reader comments/replies. Which is too bad, since I'd like to ask him what limits/boundaries/goals he sets for trust-building withdrawal compliance, vs seeking modification of the Withdrawal agreement to prevent an unravelling.

DonBacon notes Col. Volesky's caveat on withdrawal from combat ops in Mosul. That syncs with an Odierno interview to the Euro press last weekend (BBC?) that mentioned a possible INCREASE in troops towards year end, specifically noting instability in the North.

On the face of it, maintaining (recognizing?) a primary US combat role in Mosul would be a modification of the 'withdraw from major cities by 7/09' SOFA provision. Odierno's hints of a pre-election balloon in troops challenges perceptions that we are tracking toward a linear pullout schedule, once the 15 month tours end this Summer.

'Nuff said?

by Don Bacon on Tue, 04/14/2009 - 10:23pm

I guess not. The Pentagon has repeatedly indicated that the SOFA, like Army Regulations, is only a guide and the actual situation (and Iraq desires) will be the final determinants. That's why the SOFA wasn't treated as a treaty but as an executive agreement.

Again, clearly Odierno was waffling. The aversion to timetables in war didn't originate with Bush.

Pages 216-218

by Johnny Rico on Wed, 04/15/2009 - 3:59am

You obviously are making some coin off of this book, but I wonder, how many people actually make it to page 217.

The book is half-decent I guess by historical standards. I struggled through the 1st 150 pages. You should tell people nothing happens until then in the name of transparency.

I enjoyed the first 150 pages. I read a lot and the subject matter is dear to me. But I'm not like other people. I can totally see a lot of people buying this book for the cover and the author and losing it after 20 pages.

...

But you have a serious problem on pages 216-218. Until this point you are a cheerleader for Petraeus/Odierno/Mansoor/Cohen/and some other people - when you make it quite clear that it was Odierno that CREATED the problem.

Petraeus has serious issues, but it will be years before they come to the surface.

So you have basically based a book and a paycheck around the idea that these guys have saved the world and then in this section you bring up the case of Gentile (there were several other quotes and issues along these lines that led to this).

And then you personally assassinate Gentile in a page and a half. You dismiss his argument with no facts and your anecdote. Outrageous.

This book is so poorly referenced. I wish you luck.

And now you are writing blog posts saying you think this whole "miracle" is unraveling?

You have created a colorful - what Nassim Taleb would call "Narrative Fallacy."

I honestly don't know how you sleep at night.

You think of yourself as an analyst and a "thinker." Someone who is important and should have some influence after all, because you are better than everybody else. But when it comes to accountability, you are just a reporter.

Right? Pretty sick stuff.

Stop taking credit for your own supposed insight while pawning off your confusion on the people you interview. If you are going to offer advice on how to run a war on your blog, take credit for the results, publish the results, and publish your track record with military decisions.

You write on a website that has arguments between itself and Slate whether or not Israel and Iran will engage in nuclear mano-a-mano like it was a grudge tennis match. Grow up.

I can say anything I want. I paid $27 bucks for your book. I'm not one of the reviewers that got it for free and didn't read it.

The Bottom Line

by Johnny Rico on Wed, 04/15/2009 - 6:00am

I'm on page 225 now. I'm a slow reader.

You wrote and sold a book and are making countless dollars on the "history" (which already happened, "definitely", the last two years). This history is of the surge succeeding. You present two sides, but one would think you would have taken the other given your first book.

The book is ostensibly about the skill/talent/brilliance of Petraeus.

But you show that he is a mindless political-zombie who will do or say anything to move forward. He never served in combat, there is in fact nothing that distinguishes him from other officers in the US military. He is quite ordinary.

You are schizophrenic about this point, because initially you thought there was, you wrote a book about him, and in the midst you realized there wasn't. But you had already cashed your advance.

You are a horrible, horrible person, Ricks. I'm gonna take you down if you don't respond to me soon.

You are writing about War and thousands of lives, not Paris Hilton.

What makes this better is you forgot that your research and the book you rushed to the printers proves my points and also proves Petreaus a pathological liar.

Don't hold off too long on responding

by Johnny Rico on Wed, 04/15/2009 - 6:04am

I take print screens so don't bother deleting my comments. It just gets worse.

Try thinking of me like those fictional Al Qaeda insurgents in the Triangle after your boys figured out the "right" way to do things.

Deal with me with a "light" touch.

Okaaaayyyy . . .

by Charlieford on Wed, 04/15/2009 - 9:23am

. . . But really. It's not nice to make fun of the mentally unstable.