Comments for Success in Iraq at http://www.michaelyon-online.com , comment 1 to 39 out of 20 comments http://www.michaelyon-online.com Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:42:17 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.michaelyon-online.com/success-in-iraq.htm#comment-15597 More blather from Galloway. I could point out everything wron he said but I don't feel like rewriting his whole article. This blog is just not worth reading anymore if it mainly consists of his articles. - Jim Nelson Fri, 15 Aug 2008 17:33:00 +0100 http://www.michaelyon-online.com/success-in-iraq.htm#comment-15562 If the war were won, there would be no need for 50 bases in Iraq. We have had bases in foreign countries where (1) the foreign country was a defeated enemy ( eg. Japan post WW II), or (2) there was a war which was not conclusive (eg. South Korea). The Cold War was an inconclusive struggle for years, and there were bases in Europe. However, even when the Cold War ended, the bases did not disappear, for the enemy was re-defined. The war is not won, for the enemy will constantly change. Enemies will rise and fall. Beyond this, the USA will define and re-define who the enemy is. This process will allow us to never achieve what is considered a standard "victory", but we do not want that type of final victory anyway. Since we do not wish a clear cut victory, the statement that the war is over can mean nothing more than the enemy is meeting the "surge" by taking a "breather". In fact, the Iraqi people can look forward to nothing more than being a battleground between the USA and the newly re-defined enemy, whoever that may be. - Montag Tue, 29 Jul 2008 00:46:00 +0100 http://www.michaelyon-online.com/success-in-iraq.htm#comment-15557 Dear Michael, I write to you with great respect and admiration for the courage you embody in your world travels and open dialogue about the situation on the ground. As an American soldier deploying to Iraq in September, it is with great hope that your words may prove true and that indeed the "war is over." While I might argue that your assessment is somewhat premature from a strategic standpoint, nonetheless, it is enlightening, and adds another voice to the debate, but one that in my opinion carries a great deal of weight. YOU, unlike the majority of our political leaders had the courage to put yourself on the ground and find out for yourself what is going on. I am linked to your blog, and a fan of your writing. Please visit www.deathcanwait.blogspot.com PFC Hawkes United States Army - Abraham Isaac Sun, 27 Jul 2008 23:09:00 +0100 http://www.michaelyon-online.com/success-in-iraq.htm#comment-15538 No, I don't believe the Russians tried that. The Russians were more interested in installing a communist puppet government in Afghanistan to give them an ally against the Chinese. My point is that Pashtun don't recognize a distinction between Afghanistan and Pakistan as concerns borders. Their tribal areas cover both sides of the border and they are the ones harboring and supporting the Taliban and al Qaeda (indeed Pashtuns created the Taliban movement, if my memory is correct). If we are to crush the Taliban and al Qaeda, the Pashtun must pay a steep enough price to make them stop that support. - John Galt Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:00:00 +0100 http://www.michaelyon-online.com/success-in-iraq.htm#comment-15535 in Afghanistan? a soldier's mom - mary g Thu, 24 Jul 2008 02:29:00 +0100 http://www.michaelyon-online.com/success-in-iraq.htm#comment-15534 If these Pashtuns are making more money from the poppies than the entire GDP of Pakistan, what are they doing with the money and how come they're still all living in mud huts and illiterate? I would challenge someone to produce factual figures to support that assertion (not that I doubt there is significant money being made, I just question the assertion that it's more than Paki GDP). War will continue to be waged until you break the will of those who support the warriors. In this case it is Pashtun who "own" the area on both sides of the artificial borders between Pakistan and Afghanistan. The only way to end Pashtun support for both the Taliban and al Qaeda is to show them the personal cost of supporting them. When you think about the American Civil War, what ended it was breaking the will of the Southern secessionists. Sherman did this by showing the civilians there was a cost to supporting Confederate troops in terms of burned crops (sources of income), burned farm homesteads, and destroyed rail lines (means to transport the source of income and transport troops and supplies). The way to end this is to make it too costly and demoralizing for the Pashtun to continue their present actions. WRT Pakistan, we simply tell them we are making war on the Taliban and al Qaeda and that we will do so wherever they are. If the Pakis are wise, they will stay out of the way or get run over. - John Galt Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:46:00 +0100 http://www.michaelyon-online.com/success-in-iraq.htm#comment-15533 Your declaration of victory really rings hollow. How exactly do you define victory? A stable democracy in Iraq? Well, to paraphrase a great British statesman: before you push democracy around the world you better make sure you can live with the election results. We pushed the Israelis to allow elections in Gaza and a terrorist group won. We removed Iran's greatest enemy in the region and replaced him with a democratically elected pro-Iranian government. Did we fight this war so that Iran can have another friend and ally in the region. We did for Iran what it couldn't do in ten bloody years of war. We got rid of Saddam and Iran's influence in the region has grown ever since. Not only is the new Iraqi government pro-Iran, it has also openly supported Hamas and Hezbollah. How is this a victory? Finally, you allude to a "pluralistic" "stable" Iraq, yet you fail to mention the continuing persecution and murder of Christians. Thousands of Christians have fled Iraq. Hundreds have been killed. Those who have been left behind have been driven underground. All of this is the product of a reign of terror that is supported by many members of our democratically elected Iraqi government. Others in the government just look the other way. In sum, we have fought a war that has made Iran and its terrorist proxies stronger just so we can install a government that has given a green light to the persecution of Christians. Sure sounds like victory to me. - Paul46 Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:07:00 +0100 http://www.michaelyon-online.com/success-in-iraq.htm#comment-15531 you've linked to my local paper before. they had an article recently with a local journalist embedded. http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/jul/21/reporting-iraq-violence-still-flourishes-diyala/ - nananha Tue, 22 Jul 2008 00:49:00 +0100 http://www.michaelyon-online.com/success-in-iraq.htm#comment-15530 Obamaƒ??s Op-Ed in the New York Times said: ƒ??Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has beenƒ?? I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading [Iraq]ƒ??ƒ? But the central front in any conflict is not defined unilaterally: the enemy gets a vote. AQ's key leaders made it clear they regard Iraq as a central front in the war on terrorism, and regard Afghanistan as little more than a side-show drama. This could change as AQ realizes it has taken a major setback in Iraq, forcing them to refocus on Afghanistan even though their own propaganda has been saying Iraq, not Afghanistan, is the central front in their war against the West for many years now. But donƒ??t take my word for it. Read the words of Ayman al-Zawahiri, who is Osama bin Ladenƒ??s chief strategist and ideologue. Zawahiri wrote an important letter to the (now slain) Jordanian-born Iraqi insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in July 2005. Al-Zarqawi had pledged his allegiance to Al Qaeda. The United States captured this letter, and later released it to the public in October 2005. (Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/report/2005/zawahiri-zarqawi-letter_9jul2005.htm) 3+ years after the letter was made public, most Democrats still refuse to understand AQ and how it sees the GWOT. Ayman al Zawahiri wrote: ƒ??It has always been my belief that the victory of Islam will never take place until a Muslim state is established in the manner of the Prophet [i.e., a Caliphate] in the heart of the Islamic world, specifically in the Levant, Egypt, and the neighboring states of the Peninsula and Iraq; however, the center would be in the Levant and Egypt... As for the battles that are going on in the far-flung regions of the Islamic world, such as Chechnya, Afghanistan, Kashmir, and Bosnia, they are just the groundwork and the vanguard for the major battles which have begun in the heart of the Islamic world. We ask God that He send down his victory upon us that he promised to his faithful worshipers.ƒ? This passage lays out the strategic context of both Iraq and Afghanistan in the eyes of Al Qaeda. AQ's goal is establishing a fundamentalist Islamic caliphate in the "heart of the Islamic world." Zawahiri then lists countries constituting ƒ??the heart of the Islamic world.ƒ? Iraq is on that list. Then Zawahiri lists other regions and conflicts he regards as ƒ??far-flung.ƒ? He lists these as being of no particular importance apart from them laying the ƒ??ground workƒ? for the ƒ??major battlesƒ? to be fought ƒ??in the heart of the Islamic world.ƒ? In other words, these other places are little more than a side-show for the main event in Iraq. Afghanistan is on that other list. This is an absolute refutation, in Al Qaedaƒ??s own words, of Senator Obamaƒ??s entire argument that Iraq is the sideshow and Afghanistan is the ƒ??real war.ƒ?? - AVN Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:50:00 +0100 http://www.michaelyon-online.com/success-in-iraq.htm#comment-15529 Michael, I'd like your view of the new HBO series, "Generation Kill". It only portrays the early days of the war but I'd like to know how realistic you belief it is. Keep the faith. - Daniel Sides Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:21:00 +0100 http://www.michaelyon-online.com/success-in-iraq.htm#comment-15528 Pretty bold move declaring victory in Iraq Mr. Yon. Let me just point out that your view on the ground is primarily from small unit imbeds. Things may be going well on a tactical level, but in the broader strategic assessment - IRAQ IS FAR FROM OVER. Please do not arbitrarily declare victory. It is not your place. - Mike Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:22:00 +0100 http://www.michaelyon-online.com/success-in-iraq.htm#comment-15525 Given the notion of Clausewitz's Fog and Friction of War notion, do you think the exploitation of technology (ie: robots, UAVs, etcƒ??) within an the asymmetrical environment of the Global War on Terror renders Clausewitz's notion still relevant or obsolete? - MAJ L.W. Robinson, Student, U.S. ARMY, ILE, CGSC Sun, 20 Jul 2008 23:26:00 +0100 http://www.michaelyon-online.com/success-in-iraq.htm#comment-15522 Wasn't the civil war as waged in the south a war of attrition? Is total warfare a moral, just way to wage war? Isn't that a bit like comparing amputation of both legs and arms to laser surgery on an abscess on each limb? It is more mentally challenging to fight the new way - but it is definitely more just, leaving less opportunity for "spoils of war" opportunism and , by the way, it will be harder for AQ or Taliban or Iranian forces to access the 550tycu now that it is no longer south of Baghdad. It seems that the set backs suffered in Iraq (while tenaciously sticking to strategy of fewer, but more highly qualified troops, with the superior kind of training developed over the past four years rather than the outdated "overwhelming force"), did not prevent a victorious result which has already changed the world in an incredibly good way. And Michael Yon, by his unswerving support of the troops on the front line, has been an indispensable part of this victory. While things look bleak in Afghanistan right now, I have confidence in the ingenuity of our military and the noble people of Afghanistan. And Michael Yon's reports. God bless them, their friends and their allies And, of course, their friend, Michael Yon. a soldier's mom - mary g Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:39:00 +0100 http://www.michaelyon-online.com/success-in-iraq.htm#comment-15521 I have been one of Michael's readers for years. I rarely post here. I bought an advance signed copy of his book. Then I moved and forgot the book was still coming to my old address. In lieu of contacting the publisher and figuring out whether it had already been shipped or not, I went to the store and bought an unsigned copy and chalked it up as a contribution. Regretfully, I have been very busy and have yet to start it. I have an enormous respect for Michael and really enjoy his writing. That does not affect my judgment of the situation in Iraq, however. It is a very bold claim that he made, one which few others have gone on the record with. My initial post may have been filled with a bit too much sarcasm but I wanted to get the point across that victory is far from certain. Michael is correct to assert that the level of violence in Iraq could possibly warrant saying that Iraq is not currently 'at war' but that is not the same thing as saying that the war is over or that we have succeeded in Iraq. If the war has stopped but many of the things that caused it in the first place have not been resolved then I would say it is decidedly uncertain whether it will start again. - waterboy Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:56:00 +0100 http://www.michaelyon-online.com/success-in-iraq.htm#comment-15520 To Waterboy: You really need to read all of Michael's work over the past several years before you start commenting on his observations. If you took the time to read prior to commenting you will find that Michael has better than average foresight. Also I would say that A person who is on the ground making observations has more credibility than someone who is not. - Glbrt Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:58:00 +0100 http://www.michaelyon-online.com/success-in-iraq.htm#comment-15519 How is it that NO ONE has questioned Michael's tiny little assertion that, you know, we have WON the war in Iraq!!!!???? Until the next elections are held, don't you think it's a bit early to be declaring victory? -Based on Maliki's use of the ISF to degrade rival political groups with wide popular support (the Sadarists) what makes you think this election will go smoothly? There is no election law yet in place and the date has already been pushed back. Would it be an unexpected development then if it did not go smoothly and major groups felt disenfranchised and resumed fighting the GoI? Until the oil law is passed, couldn't that cause the civil war to reignite? -Kirkuk's fate has not been decided. Many expect that could result in a civil war. The Awakening groups and the IIP in Baghdad are not in any way convinced that that the ruling Shiite coalition wants to distribute oil revenues in an equitable manner. Until the SoIs are integrated into the IA, might they return to fighting us and the Shiites? We have not even negotiated a SOFA or SFA with the GoI yet. If we do not even have a formal long term relationship in place with their government how can you say that it is expected to proceed favorably when several groups are calling for it to include a hard deadline for our withdrawal? Iraq is a lot better than it was but we still have a long way to go before declaring it a success. [insert picture of Mission Accomplished banner] - waterboy Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:49:00 +0100 http://www.michaelyon-online.com/success-in-iraq.htm#comment-15518 One approach to the Heroin problem is to buy a certain amount of Opium legally, as we do from Turkey and India. A legal opium trade would stabilize the country. Purchasing the license to grow opium from the central government and export it legally would be a great blow to the illegal traders. - Don Meaker Thu, 17 Jul 2008 02:09:00 +0100 http://www.michaelyon-online.com/success-in-iraq.htm#comment-15517 First, Mr. Yon, thank you for the years you have spent reporting the facts about Iraq. Second, now that al Qaeda has lost in Iraq, its leaders may have largely retrenched to the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. Whether by luck or design, that means they are cornered in that region. Of course, the region has served as a sanctuary for centuries and it will obviously be very hard to dislodge anyone hiding there. Nevertheless, it seems to me Afghanistan may potentially be both a difficult task and a golden opportunity. - DRJ Thu, 17 Jul 2008 01:59:00 +0100 http://www.michaelyon-online.com/success-in-iraq.htm#comment-15516 Hopefully our success is stable enough to withstand the inevitable back-stabbing by that morally repugnant cretin Obama. We'll see. We've never had an anti-American President before. It's unfortunate that decent people will likely have to endure the consequences of someone like Obama and his hard-left fellow travelers. Obama: a new Benedict Arnold for a new century! - imdrake Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:24:00 +0100 http://www.michaelyon-online.com/success-in-iraq.htm#comment-15515 Your point: "The war continues to abate in Iraq. Violence is still present, but, of course, Iraq was a relatively violent place long before Coalition forces moved in." The general point that the strategy of the past year appears to be working is will supported by the evidence. But you may alienate some readership with your fast and lose comment that "Iraq was a relatively violent place long before Coalition forces moved in." This simply isn't true, locals and visitors did not have to fear random violence, robberies, check points and kidnappings in 2002. I have plenty of Jordanian friends that would go shopping there all the time in the late 90s to before the war, the sanctions made the Iraqis poor and the prices cheap, and they had no problems One thing dictators do get right is order. The memories of Saddam's crack downs on dissent in the 80s and his crushing of the Shia uprising in the early 90s was enough to keep everyone in line. To believe that the current level of violence is an Iraqi norm is simply not the case. - ben_j Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:59:00 +0100