National Intelligence Estimate Questions Iraq's Progress

[JMS]

What Iraq looks like when you take politics out of the equation...

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8R6QNKO0&show_article=1

Intel Report Questions Iraq's ProgressAug 23 11:44 AM US/Eastern

By PAULINE JELINEK and KATHERINE SHRADER

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Iraqi government will become more precarious over the next six to 12 months and its security forces have not improved enough to operate without outside help, intelligence analysts conclude in a new National Intelligence Estimate released Friday.

Despite uneven improvements, the analysts concluded that the level of overall violence is high, Iraq's sectarian groups remain unreconciled, and al-Qaida in Iraq is still able to conduct its highly visible attacks.

"Iraqi political leaders remain unable to govern effectively," the 10- page document concludes. A copy was obtained by The Associated Press in advance of its release Thursday.

The report represents the collaborative judgments of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency and the intelligence organization of each military service. It comes at a time of renewed tensions between Washington and Baghdad.

The report says that Iraqi Security Forces, working alongside the United States, have performed "adequately." However, it says they haven't shown enough improvement to conduct operations without U.S. and coalition forces and are still reliant on others for key support.

[Larry]

Don't worry. I'm certain that Cheney will "paperless declassify" selected quotes that say everything's peachy.

[JMS]

Where are all the faith based reasoners calling out the liberal bias in this consensus opinion of the 16 national intelligence agencies?...

Clearly they are defeatist liberal pinko communists reporting this leftest propaganda about Iraq. Didn't they see all the good things we're doing in Iraq? Intelectual elitists!!!... Don't you wish they could have left their bias at home?

It is truly a sign of how politically weak Bush has become. Now he can't even scare the intelligence agencies into toeing his party line on the eve of the Sept 15th report to congress...

[luckydevil]

It doesn't really matter. We are not going anywhere

[JMS]

It doesn't really matter. We are not going anywhere

I disagree. We can't stay put. It's only a matter of whether we are leaving sooner or latter. Bush says he won't pull out while he's in office.

If we're still in Iraq for the next elections it is likely going to result in a landslide Democrat victory. Which could mean the Dems in congress get's the ruleing majority required to force the issue.

Also every republican on the hill knows what's comming. Look for them to break from Bush on Iraq in the coming months. Just because Bush doesn't have to stand for re-election doesn't mean the republican party is willing to go down with their captain on this issue.

[luckydevil]

I disagree. We can't stay put. It's only a matter of whether we are leaving sooner or latter. Bush says he won't pull out while he's in office.

If we're still in Iraq for the next elections it is likely going to result in a landslide Democrat victory. Which could mean the Dems in congress get's the ruleing majority required to force the issue.

Also every republican on the hill knows what's comming. Look for them to break from Bush on Iraq in the coming months. Just because Bush doesn't have to stand for re-election doesn't mean the republican party is willing to go down with their captain on this issue.

I hope you are right, but we are building permanent bases. The leader contender of the democratic party ( Hillary) is pretty damn hawkish. There is a reason why Bill Kristol calls her the only "responsible" candidate of the democratic party. The truth is the republican party is in a tough spot. There is no doubt that many republicans in congress hate this war and regret supporting it, but the base of the party ( the people that vote) is still very pro-Iraq war. Its political suicide for most republicans to speak out against the war.

[twa]

I got no problem with the report,you should keep in mind how long ago the info used was put together though...The NIE is dated by the time it is released.

The situation there is fluid and will remain in flux for years,especially when Iran is attacked.

LD is correct though ,we will be there in some fashion for quite awhile no matter which party wins....might as well get used to it.

Added

Why did you leave out this part?

We assess that changing the mission of Coalition forces from a primarily counterinsurgency and stabilization role to a primary combat support role for Iraqi forces and counterterrorist operations to prevent AQI from establishing a safehaven would erode security gains achieved thus far.

[Larry]

I'll also go out on a (very safe, IMO) limb and make a prediction about the NIE:

The Left will look at it, and they will see passages which (to them) say that they're right. And they will leak those passages.

The Right will look at it, and they will see passages which (to them) say that they're right. And they will leak those passages. (And they will claim that they are justified and Moral in doing so, and that The Left are jeopardizing National Security by revealing parts of a classified document, as part of a naked plot to further their plans to seize political power.)

[luckydevil]

I'll also go out on a (very safe, IMO) limb and make a prediction about the NIE:

The Left will look at it, and they will see passages which (to them) say that they're right. And they will leak those passages.

The Right will look at it, and they will see passages which (to them) say that they're right. And they will leak those passages. (And they will claim that they are justified and Moral in doing so, and that The Left are jeopardizing National Security by revealing parts of a classified document, as part of a naked plot to further their plans to seize political power.)

All of which equals more of the status quo ( staying in Iraq)

[Redskins Diehard]

I'll also go out on a (very safe, IMO) limb and make a prediction about the NIE:

The Left will look at it, and they will see passages which (to them) say that they're right. And they will leak those passages.

The Right will look at it, and they will see passages which (to them) say that they're right. And they will leak those passages. (And they will claim that they are justified and Moral in doing so, and that The Left are jeopardizing National Security by revealing parts of a classified document, as part of a naked plot to further their plans to seize political power.)

Or...I will leak the whole thing:

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/documents/nie_dni_20070823_release.pdf?hpid=topnews

I guess you will have to wait for another opportunity to talk about Cheney and the moral right leaking stuff...maybe then it will actually be on topic?

[Larry]

I guess you will have to wait for another opportunity to talk about Cheney and the moral right leaking stuff...maybe then it will actually be on topic?

I assume you mean "to accuse both sides of leaking stuff"?

But, thanks for the link. (Reading is Fundamental.)

[jnhay]

Doesn't sound like things will improve fast enough for people who are currently against the war.

[Chump Bailey]

Didn't about 48 hours ago key democratic leaders state that they see credible evidence that the surge is working...

[Shadowplay]

Didn't about 48 hours ago key democratic leaders state that they see credible evidence that the surge is working...

Who said that? Not doubting your post, just wondering who said it.

[Ken]

I disagree. We can't stay put. It's only a matter of whether we are leaving sooner or latter. Bush says he won't pull out while he's in office.

If we're still in Iraq for the next elections it is likely going to result in a landslide Democrat victory. Which could mean the Dems in congress get's the ruleing majority required to force the issue.

Also every republican on the hill knows what's comming. Look for them to break from Bush on Iraq in the coming months. Just because Bush doesn't have to stand for re-election doesn't mean the republican party is willing to go down with their captain on this issue.

So they are building all of those massive, permanent bases because we are leaving soon?

[ZoEd]

Spoke to our Commander today, O5 Colonel, and asked him how the draw down will affect our unit. He chuckled and said "not only are we coming back but the Air Force was tasked with 5,000 ILO (in lieu of, which means working directly for the Army) slots in 07 and we'll be increased to 6,000 in 08. He also said that all Civil Engineers have been increased from 4 to 6 months indefinitely. RED HORSE, my unit, already does this. This is just ILO, this doesn't include the CENTAF taskings that we fill, we're not going anywhere.

Now I'm not a rocket scientist and don't read "reports" and political newsletters everyday but if they're increasing the amount of Civil Engineers to the AOR they obviously plan for us to building something, a whole lot of somethings. I've said it a hundred times already, we will occupy Iraq just like we do South Korea. In a couple years service members will be doing one year remotes here as well. Not TDY's or deployments but stationed in Iraq.

Can't wait till 2009 so I can retire!

[twa]

This is a interesting development if true

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/011890.php...

The leader of Iraq's banned Baath party, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, has decided to join efforts by the Iraqi authorities to fight al-Qaeda, one of the party's former top officials, Abu Wisam al-Jashaami, told pan-Arab daily Al Hayat.

"AlDouri has decided to sever ties with al-Qaeda and sign up to the programme of the national resistance, which includes routing Islamist terrorists and opening up dialogue with the Baghdad government and foreign forces," al-Jashaami said.

Al-Douri has decided to deal directly with US forces in Iraq, according to al-Jashaami. He figures in the 55-card deck of "most wanted" officials from the former Iraqi regime issued by the US government.

In return, for cooperating in the fight against al-Qaeda, al-Douri has asked for guarantees over his men's safety and for an end to Iraqi army attacks on his militias.

Recent weeks have seen a first step in this direction, when Baathist fighters cooperated with Iraqi government forces in hunting down al-Qaeda operatives in the volatile Diyala province and in several districts of the capital, Baghadad.

..

If al-Douri accepts the authority of the elected Iraqi government, then almost all of the resistance in western Iraq will disappear -- leaving AQI very exposed.

It seems more than just coincidental that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki visited the former Ba'athist power base of Tikrit last Thursday. Maliki went to Saddam's hometown, where al-Douri likely has his strongest allies, to meet with the Sunni sheikhs. They gave him a warm welcome, and they pledged to find ways to work with each other. At the same time, he signed an agreement with the Kurds and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, which has been Moqtada al-Sadr's bitter opponent in the south.

[Chump Bailey]

Who said that? Not doubting your post, just wondering who said it.

No sweat Shadow - here you go...

Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan highlighted improved security in Baghdad and al Qaeda losses in Anbar province as examples of success — a shift for Democrats who have mainly discounted or ignored advances on the battlefield for weeks.

"The military aspects of President Bush's new strategy in Iraq ... appear to have produced some credible and positive results," Mr. Levin said in a joint statement with Sen. John W. Warner, Virginia Republican, after a two-day visit last week to Iraq.

"It's working," Mrs. Clinton said of the troop surge yesterday in a speech at the Veterans of Foreign Wars national convention in Kansas City, Mo., a group at odds with her votes for a pullout and against emergency troop funding.

But Mrs. Clinton told the roughly 5,000 veterans that the new strategy came "too late" in the four-year-old war and it is time to bring U.S. troops home.

"I do not think the Iraqis are ready to do what they have to do for themselves yet," she said. "I think it is unacceptable for our troops to be caught in the crossfire of a sectarian civil war while the Iraqi government is on vacation."

U.S. Rep. Brian Baird said Thursday that his recent trip to Iraq convinced him the military needs more time in the region, and that a hasty pullout would cause chaos that helps Iran and harms U.S. security.

Baird, a five-term Democrat, voted against President Bush ordering the Iraq invasion — at a time when he was in a minority in Congress and at risk of alienating voters. He returned late Tuesday from a trip that included stops in Israel, Jordan and Iraq, where he met troops, U.S. advisers and Iraqis, whose stories have convinced him that U.S. troops must stay longer.

Baird said he would not say this if he didn't believe two things:

• "One, I think we're making real progress."

• "Secondly, I think the consequences of pulling back precipitously would be potentially catastrophic for the Iraqi people themselves, to whom we have a tremendous responsibility … and in the long run chaotic for the region as a whole and for our own security."

[JMS]

I hope you are right, but

(1) we are building permanent bases.

(2) The leader contender of the democratic party ( Hillary) is pretty damn hawkish. There is a reason why Bill Kristol calls her the only "responsible" candidate of the democratic party. The truth is the republican party is in a tough spot. There is no doubt that many republicans in congress hate this war and regret supporting it, but

(3)the base of the party ( the people that vote) is still very pro-Iraq war.

(4) Its political suicide for most republicans to speak out against the war.

I agree with most of what you've said except #3 and thus #4. Only 30% of the country approves of Bush and that's roughly the same percentage of folks who believe we should stay the course in Iraq.

As for suicide if Republicans talk out against the war I think that's the exact opposite, or it will be in the comming months. Senator Warner who was one of the most respected voices on the military still in the President's camp called for withdrawl yesterday. Senator Richard Luger who was arguable the most respected foreign affairs voice left in the republican party broke with Bush on Iraq two months ago. Look for most of the other republicans to pull their support publically in the lead up to the next election.

As for Hillary backing the war. Actually she's calling for a draw down too, what you are reffering too is her belief that America should draw down to 40-50,000 troops and leave those guys there long term. I agree this is Bush's long term desire too. I would only counter that the Clinton's are masters at telling folks what they want you to hear and then doing what they really want to do after the fact. I don't believe Hillary for a minute. Besides this isn't going to be a Presidentical decision. Congress is going to decide this issue giving Hillary plausible deniablility.

The democrates took the Senate and the House on the back of public opinion against the war. When the gain a rulling majority next election; they will pull the plug. Just like Congress pulled the plug in Vietnam. To do otherwise would be to join the Republican suicide pact on Iraq. Something the Dem's have shown no willingness to do.

[SkinsFanAnt]

It doesn't really matter. We are not going anywhere

Acutally...you're right...IF Hilliary Clinton becomes president. She's one of the elitist who want to stay because of all the fing money their sponsering corporations are making off the war in exchange for American soldiers lives. Pisses me off to no end..I have a cousing over there now and I'm so hoping that Barack or Ron Paul gets elected (doubt Ron Paul will...he makes too much sense and is running under Rep. ticket) so we can get the F out of there.

Either way you try to roll it, Iraq is F'd....its simply a matter of whether we're going to continue to be part of it and get F'd in the process as well.

[JMS]

I got no problem with the report,you should keep in mind how long ago the info used was put together though...The NIE is dated by the time it is released.

The situation there is fluid and will remain in flux for years,especially when Iran is attacked.

LD is correct though ,we will be there in some fashion for quite awhile no matter which party wins....might as well get used to it.

Added

Why did you leave out this part?

We assess that changing the mission of Coalition forces from a primarily counterinsurgency and stabilization role to a primary combat support role for Iraqi forces and counter terrorist operations to prevent AQI from establishing a safe haven would erode security gains achieved thus far.

First off you are wrong, the National Security Paper explicitly dealt with what is happening now on Iraq and represents the consensus view of current events in Iraq. Publishing a report on what was going on six months ago would be meaningless.

Second off, I didn't leave out anything, I posted the entire article.

I would add, what you are presenting as our future action is actually what Bush proposes. Bush isn't going to be the decider on this one. The country is not going to support politicians who advocate "staying the course". Everybody knows this. That's why some of the most influential Republicans in the senate are already leaving this sinking ship. Luger and now Warner. Those folks leaving and calling for withdrawal are going to be a flood come 8 months before the elections. Republicans are going to be knocking themselves down to proclaim how they never were pro war. It's that or face political extinction.

This decision is going to be taken out of Bush's hands.

Oh, if 160,000 troops can not make an appreciable difference in Iraq, I wonder how 40,000 or 50,000 troops will be successful? Sounds like a recipe for the little big horn, or Dien Bien Foo.

[JMS]

Acutally...you're right...IF Hilliary Clinton becomes president. She's one of the elitist who want to stay because of all the fing money their sponsering corporations are making off the war in exchange for American soldiers lives. Pisses me off to no end..I have a cousing over there now and I'm so hoping that Barack or Ron Paul gets elected (doubt Ron Paul will...he makes too much sense and is running under Rep. ticket) so we can get the F out of there.

Either way you try to roll it, Iraq is F'd....its simply a matter of whether we're going to continue to be part of it and get F'd in the process as well.

We have lived through 8 years of the Clinton's. Do you honestly take her at her word on leaving troops there?

What with her entire party against it. Hillary is just saying what she thinks helps her the most in the election. What the Clinton's say is not an indicator of their actions.

The political calculations go like this. The anti war vote is already sown up because they have nowhere else to go. By giving lip service for a continued deployment, maybe she can peal away sum of Bush's remaining supporters.

[Midnight Judges]

I agree with most of what you've said except #3 and thus #4. Only 30% of the country approves of Bush and that's roughly the same percentage of folks who believe we should stay the course in Iraq.

Yeah but he was talking about the Republican base. Approval of the Iraq war among the base tends to hover around 50-60%. They are really buying into this report that's going to be written by the White House. How many times can they get duped by the same people and keep coming back for more? :laugh:

[Midnight Judges]

No sweat Shadow - here you go...

link?

[JMS]

Doesn't sound like things will improve fast enough for people who are currently against the war.

It's a slow process, but we are coming to the end of it. The people are taking back the government. Right and Left; the war is unpopular, expensive, and pointless. The majority of Folks might still hope for a victory even in a pointless war, but they do realize we aren't winning. At 3 billion a week, if we aren't winning after 6 years and likely more than a trillian dollars, we've lost.