Thread: Iraqi Government Not Meeting Any Goals

Official: Iraq gov't missed all targetsA progress report on Iraq will conclude that the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad has not met any of its targets for political, economic and other reform, speeding up the Bush administration's reckoning on what to do next, a U.S. official said Monday.

One likely result of the report will be a vastly accelerated debate among President Bush's top aides on withdrawing troops and scaling back the U.S. presence in Iraq.

The "pivot point" for addressing the matter will no longer be Sept. 15, as initially envisioned, when a full report on Bush's so-called "surge" plan is due, but instead will come this week when the interim mid-July assessment is released, the official said.

"The facts are not in question," the official told The Associated Press, speaking on condition of anonymity because the draft is still under discussion.
"The real question is how the White House proceeds with a post-surge strategy in light of the report."

The report, required by law, is expected to be delivered to Capitol Hill by Thursday or Friday, as the Senate takes up a $649 billion defense policy bill and votes on a Democratic amendment ordering troop withdrawals to begin in 120 days.

Also being drafted are several Republican-backed proposals that would force a new course in Iraq, including one by Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Ben Nelson, D-Neb., that would require U.S. troops to abandon combat missions. Collins and Nelson say their binding amendment would order the U.S. mission to focus on training the Iraqi security forces, targeting al-Qaida members and protecting Iraq's borders.

"My goal is to redefine the mission and set the stage for a significant but gradual drawdown of our troops next year," said Collins.

GOP support for the war has eroded steadily since Bush's decision in January to send some 30,000 additional troops to Iraq. At the time, Bush said the Iraqis agreed to meet certain benchmarks, such as enacting a law to divide the nation's oil reserves.

This spring, Congress agreed to continue funding the war through September but demanded that Bush certify on July 15 and again on Sept. 15 that the Iraqis were living up to their political promises or forgo U.S. aid dollars.
The official said it is highly unlikely that Bush will withhold or suspend aid to the Iraqis based on the report.

A draft version of the administration's progress report circulated among various government agencies in Washington on Monday.

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow on Monday tried to lower expectations on the report, contending that all of the additional troops had just gotten in place and it would be unrealistic to expect major progress by now.

"You are not going to expect all the benchmarks to be met at the beginning of something," Snow said. "I'm not sure everyone's going to get an `A' on the first report."

What this really means is that Democrat foot dragging has managed to accomplish something the US has never done before.

Fail.

This was, of course, a predictable outcome of the so-called troop "surge". When the mission is "let's try a little harder, and if it doesn't work, we'll quit", the message is "you enemy people, keep fighting hard, and we'll give up".

If we'd ever presented the message "we're gonna go in and kick yo' ass until yo' ain't got no ass left", the enemy would have gotten a different idea.

What happens next? Death on a large scale. Disruption. Disgrace. Disspiritedness. Disaster. Democrats

well u mastered the D's.
Unforunately, the blame lies not with the Democrats.
Iraq is a ideaological diverse country. Once the insurgency started, the seeds for civil war were sown. If people cannot agree on the most basic things, like the 'unalienable rights' of their fellow man, then they cannot agree on anything.
Remember the looting? US forces stood by and let it happen.
There are some accounts that there was an insurgency the DAY US troops rolled into baghdad. Everyone who put a little bit of brain to it knew that.
Once it comes down to 'Shiite VS Sunni VS Kurd', we have already lost. And it has been that way for years now.

Tell me. In 4 years the coalition has accomplished nothing to bridge the gaps of sunni/shiite/kurd.

How can the Democrats do anything with that?

Of course the blame lies with the Democrats. They lied when they voted to approve the war, their "Yes" vote indicating that they'd give their full support to the efforts of the men in the field. Instead, they've done everything except twist the knife they've jammed in the backs of those men and women.

They've dragged their feet, ensuring we were never able to field enough men and equipment to ensure success...after they voted to start a war.

They've vociferously and loudly proclaimed that the war was wrong...after they voted to approve it.

And thereby provided aide, comfort, and encouragement to the enemy, ...after they voted to start a war.

No doubt the Republicans fucked up. They're no different than the Democrats, after all, but let's put the blame on the heads of the people who wanted to go in, but who not only refused to lift their share of the load, but actually held their end down to help the enemy.

Pity those sheephead voters who imagine that a pumpkin puppet party like either the Democrats or the republicans will represent their views in American Foreign Policies, These parties are erected to entertain the dumb sheepheads. Bush is now crying that the Iraqi Government is Failing, Laughable Joke. They were instructed to Fail, so that the Conjobs can continue to Loot, it's the same pokergames with a different twist. Remember, before the Iraq Invation, when Cheney, Wolfie, Perle, Chalabi's and the complete gang of Exiled Iraqi Puppets, who were living in America, devised the Present Iraqi Government, thinking that with the Might of the American Military, they could occupy and Controll in just one-month, that is why Bush declared his famous "Mission Accomplished" one month after the Invasion, but it now is a certainty that Bush is badly Quagmired in Iraq and just cannot find his Exit, stuck in the Middle East Maze. The Insurgents have the Upper Hand.

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

What this really means is that Democrat foot dragging has managed to accomplish something the US has never done before.

Fail.

This was, of course, a predictable outcome of the so-called troop "surge". When the mission is "let's try a little harder, and if it doesn't work, we'll quit", the message is "you enemy people, keep fighting hard, and we'll give up".

If we'd ever presented the message "we're gonna go in and kick yo' ass until yo' ain't got no ass left", the enemy would have gotten a different idea.

What happens next? Death on a large scale. Disruption. Disgrace. Disspiritedness. Disaster. Democrats

:therethere:

Typical and predictable answer.

Eventhough it was the pre-planned PNAC agenda that Bush carried out.

JOM & TD, chime in, also.

I don't need to elaborate.

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

What this really means is that Democrat foot dragging has managed to accomplish something the US has never done before.

Fail.

This was, of course, a predictable outcome of the so-called troop "surge". When the mission is "let's try a little harder, and if it doesn't work, we'll quit", the message is "you enemy people, keep fighting hard, and we'll give up".

If we'd ever presented the message "we're gonna go in and kick yo' ass until yo' ain't got no ass left", the enemy would have gotten a different idea.

What happens next? Death on a large scale. Disruption. Disgrace. Disspiritedness. Disaster. Democrats

I'm going to have to disagree there FFA. The troop surge is the idea of the commander in chief, the benevolent President Bush. The war plan ultimately leads back to him. Any failings in progress can be attributed not by any lack of funding (as there has not been any), requirements from Congress about troop withdrawals (as there is no timeline set), or anything other than a utter lack of military leadership on the part of the White House.

The president is our military leader. Hold him responsible for being a bad military leader. Perhaps if he had listened to the generals in the beginning when they requested three times the number of troops that we went in with this fiasco would have been over a long time ago.

Oh no, no, no, you can't disagree with FFA! Eventhough he claims to be a Libertarian, he is so obvious alligned with the Bush crowd in blaming the Democrats for every single problem that comes up. This takes the cake, though, blaming only the Democrats for the pre-planned invasion of Iraq! HAH! Sure the WHOLE Congress, both Democrat AND REPUBLICAN voted to invade Iraq, since they're all weak-minded individuals with no backbones, but as you said TFM, Bush should be the one taking complete blame for any mistakes.

What a complete joke. How can anyone take him seriously now after that sadly laughable post?!! Blame the Democrats for the invasion of Iraq and all the problems that have occurred there.

Don't you think that one of the main reasons the so-called "Iraqi Government" isn't meeting any goals is that they are relying on Bush to take care of business? Why do the Iraqis have to worry about protecting Iraq from whomever the enemy is this week? They've got the World's savior himself, George W. Bush!

Un-frickin'-believable! Blame the Democrats for Iraq........:laughing:

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

Of course the blame lies with the Democrats. They lied when they voted to approve the war, their "Yes" vote indicating that they'd give their full support to the efforts of the men in the field. Instead, they've done everything except twist the knife they've jammed in the backs of those men and women.

They've dragged their feet, ensuring we were never able to field enough men and equipment to ensure success...after they voted to start a war.

They've vociferously and loudly proclaimed that the war was wrong...after they voted to approve it.

And thereby provided aide, comfort, and encouragement to the enemy, ...after they voted to start a war.

No doubt the Republicans fucked up. They're no different than the Democrats, after all, but let's put the blame on the heads of the people who wanted to go in, but who not only refused to lift their share of the load, but actually held their end down to help the enemy.

LoL the Democrats dragged their feet?
Bush was the one who made the decision to invade with 60k troops, thus ensuring that after the initial power vaccum made with the deposing of Saddam, that there was no way to keep national control of the situation. ITs because of that initial power vaccum that the insurgency started. Democrats had nothing to do with that.

Yes, a lot of Democrats voted yes. That is true, and inescabably true, but you got to remember; there was a thing about WMD's. Where are they? I thought there was undeniable proof that they existed? But I bet the Democrats were also responsible for the failure to find WMD's.

By the way, a YES vote doesn't equal a perpetual blank check. IF you think it does, you are naive.

So, also, are you saying that all dissent in the time of war should be stopped? Are you really that facist? You claim to go for 'freedom for all'....unless of course, they disagree with you.

Answer me this question FFA: if someone disagree's with you -

A) Do they have that right?
B) If its during wartime, do they have that right?

If you answer NO to either of those questions, I will lose all respect I had for you.

The sad part is that so many, including the president, just dont understand this conflict.

I had a chance to listen to Bruce Lawlor speak, years ago, regarding religious terrorism. He pegged it then: the religious terrorist is any nation's worse nightmare.There is no capital to seige, there is no nation to invade, there are no stationary, visible targets. Terror cells are shadow organizations that can and do lay anywhere, in any nation, blending with any citizenry, and they always have the upper hand. His statement was that the only way to win against such an adversary is to make sure they know beyond doubt that you're willing to kill more of them than they are willing to lose....which is true of any war, yes, but its convincing them of that fact that can be difficult.

One of the major ways in which Bush has helped us lose this war, while winning pretty much every battle, is by shitty PR. Republicans SUCK at spin. Not saying they are more honest than Democrats, because we know that isnt true...but Democrats are without a doubt much better at spinning effectively. Bush should have hired Democrat PR teams to handle public perception of this war. It would have helped his cause, and I think done a lot more to cripple the terrorist "Sympathy Spin" in place throughout America. Troops discover, all too often after the fact, horrific examples of insurgent and terrorist atrocities, often against women and children, some too horrible to contemplate, and the media stays silent. But....a few moronic rednecks with a uniform and a power fetish make a few muslims strip and make a human pyramid and they scream for months.

Sure...thats fair and balanced.

And yes, before you leftists begin screaming and bursting a blood vessel, I know they did more than that...but they are like girlscouts compared to the list of atrocities confirmed from muslim terrorists and insurgents.

The one person reporting from Iraq I have a ton of respect for, whether I agree with him or not, is Michael Yon. I recommend checking his site, Michael Yon Online Magazine. It offers a perspective seldom seen from the mainstream media...and covers stories they insist on burying.

One of my favorite quotes from his most recent article:

Like many things in Iraq, the question of whether or not the murderers were al Qaeda is flawed from beginning. Al Qaeda is not a union, it doesn’t issue passports. What is al Qaeda but the collection of people who claim to be al Qaeda? Those responsible for murdering and burying those bodies in al Ahamir (or al Hamira) had the markers of al Qaeda, the same al Qaeda that had boastfully installed itself as the shadow government of Baqubah. The al Qaeda who committed atrocities in Afghanistan, New York . . . the list is long.