I never blend in

Sorry guys, eye'm finally off work. Whew! Hey oceans! I see these jokers have eyejacked your thread. Sorry to ear that it happened but I nose it won't last long..... Don't mind me. Just.............























mouthing off. HAH! Knew that was coming didn't ya pal?

The eyes have it!

And now..... back to Iraq.

Here are some of the key things happening in Iraq or about Iraq

since we last had an active thread on it.

1. The US military is in internal disagreement about troop levels. Having opposed Pres. Bush's 'surge' escalation, some are now saying that to accomplish the 'mission' they have to have even more troops.

Bush's political weakness now is leading critics who formerly kept quiet to speak out more. There is also within the US military a sense that its leadership failed to accurately present to the President and the Vice-President Cheney its real thoughts and concerns with the Iraq invasion and occupation. Regarding this, General Pace was dismissed because he was viewed as weak and lost the support of the military leadership.

2. The present US military strategy is to have US troops 'clear' areas of Baghdad and Iraq, which would then be 'held' by Iraqi troops, while the American troops moved on to new areas.

This was a strategy developed by an analyst at the American Enterprise Institute and one of the last neocons still publicly advocating 'victory' in Iraq.

But the underlying reality is becoming increasingly impossible to ignore: the Iraqi military and police have no interest in supporting the US occupation. Indeed, much of the intel and munitions that are being used by the Iraqi resistance is coming from personnel and armories that are in the Iraqi military and police.


What do you think? Should the US strategy be dependent on an Iraqi military that shows little interest in supporting the US strategy? If not, what are the alternative?

Oceans