The following is a link to the summarized version of the new National Intelligence Estimate regarding the situation in Iraq. Here are some key excerpts:

**If strengthened Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), more loyal to the government and supported by Coalition forces, are able to reduce levels of violence and establish more effective security for Iraq’s population, Iraqi leaders could have an opportunity to begin the process of political compromise necessary for longer term stability, political progress, and economic recovery.

The NIE also addresses the calls in Congress for a Cut and Run approach:

**Coalition capabilities, including force levels, resources, and operations, remain an essential stabilizing element in Iraq. If Coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this Estimate, we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to the Iraqi Government, and have adverse consequences for national reconciliation.

If such a rapid withdrawal were to take place, we judge that the ISF would be unlikely to survive as a non-sectarian national institution; neighboring countries—invited by Iraqi factions or unilaterally—might intervene openly in the conflict; massive civilian casualties and forced population displacement would be probable; AQI would attempt to use parts of the country—particularly al-Anbar province—to plan increased attacks in and outside of Iraq; and spiraling violence and political disarray in Iraq, along with Kurdish moves to control Kirkuk and strengthen autonomy, could prompt Turkey to launch a military incursion.

In short, Cutting and Running would be disasterous.


The full text of the NIE summary is here -

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/200 ... timate.pdf

I guess it's all in how you read it, eh?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/2/132120/2891

NIE: Iraq FUBAR?
by mcjoan
Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 10:23:13 AM PST

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence released today the declassified "key judgments" [pdf] synopsis of the new National Intelligence Estimate. And it's not pretty.

Among the findings:



The NIE describes the potential consequences: "Chaos leading to partition," the "emergence of a Shia strongman" or "anarchic fragmentation of power." It seems we're a hair's breadth away from any of these possibilities. Are we now in "gradual decline"? Didn't we hit "rapid deterioration" about a year ago, with the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra?

The NIE suggests that in another Friedman or three, if U.S. forces stay, Iraq faces "daunting" challenges, including tenuous Shiite domination, Sunnis rejecting minority status and distrustful of and hostile to the central government, and no leader on either side willing to pursue reconciliation. And if U.S. forces were to withdraw "rapidly," the situation would "almost certainly" deteriorate dramatically. What great choices we have now!

Finally, the NIE assesses the influence of Iraq's neighbors in the conflict. Iran and Syria's meddling aren't helping anything, they conclude, but at this point the involvement by any outside actor isn't likely to be either a "a major driver of violence" or improve the "prospects for stability" because Iraq’s internal sectarian dynamics are so overwhelmingly predominant.

What's striking about this NIE is the "damned if we do, damned if we don't" starkness of its terms--an assessment our Senators should be seriously considering as they approach next week's vote on the non-binding "stay the course but we're watching you this time" Levin/Warner resolution. Responsible people want to try to find a solution in Iraq, want to follow the Pottery Barn rule. But reading this assessment leads to one conclusion: we can't fix it, not with a president who is unwilling to negotiate, unwilling to take advice, unwilling to consider changing course. It's time to figure out how to get out with as little additional damage done as possible.

You are correct, David...how it reads depends on one's perspective. I was highlighting an encouraging part as well as their assertion that pulling out now will lead to a bigger mess than we have on our hands now.

I agree with the "DailyKos" that this is becoming a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. We are not making much progress as it is, but if we pack up and leave we are screwed. So what to do? I'm not for keeping an active force in Iraq with little or no progress and have them act as moving targets. On the other hand, I think the new strategy (reformed rules of engagement with a larger force, really) should be given the chance to work, because the alternative (throwing up our hands and walking away), in all liklihood, would lead to a far bigger disaster.

It's a tough call.

*EDIT*

I've got an idea!!!

The Bush Administration LOVES it's success in having Iraqi elections, right? Well, let's have another one. We ask Iraqis to vote on whether they want US troops to stay or leave immediately. If they say we should leave, then we can throw that vote back in their faces when things go to shit and they blame us a few years from now.

Whaddya think?

On a certain level it's not a bad idea....it's their country, right? However, we know that the Shi'ites are in the majority and they'd succeed in voting "us" out (Prime Minister Maliki has said he wants the coalition forces out of Baghdad so they can take over). What this would translate to is a slaughter of the minority Sunnis....then other countries with Sunni majorities would step in to come to their aid and Iran would back their Shi'ite friends and all hell would break loose.

In regards to "blame"....we have appropriation requests coming up for funding the war(s).....100 billion for the upcoming year and 145 billion for 2008. Will the Democratic majority say "no" and defund the war in the future, or will they be afraid that they will be blamed for "ultimately losing the war in Iraq?"

Let's be honest here folks, does anyone really care anymore if more Iraqis decide to kill each other? I sure as shit don't, get us the fuck out of there and let them blow themselves up. What a disgusting country.

for as long as there's a democratic government in Iraq, these 'sectarian conflicts' are going to continue. we won't be able to change how these people think and feel.

Do a real troop surge, so that we can really accomplish what the generals what done.

I'm talking, have a quarter of a million on the ground. If this was to happen, I'd volunteer. Go into the strongholds, take them over, build forward operating bases, turn said FOB's over to Iraqi's. Squash these fucks. Turn Iraq into a Martial state. I'm sorry, it might not be nice, but martial law is needed at this point to contain the violence where it's prevelant.

We have to secure the borders. We MUST make sure that Arab nations do not use Iraq as a proxy for fighting their own wars outside of their lands. We must ensure that extremists cannot use it as a ground to wage jihad on one another. We aren't controlling the borders, nor are the Iraqi's.

We have to secure the electric grid. We have to secure the oil lines. We have to secure the water source. The insurgency is being just as effective at hitting key infrastructure targets as they are at killing people and blowing up mosques. Being able to grow above Saddam era levels of electric and oil output will work wonders. But since October 04, we've been unable to get significantly higher outputs because of sabatoge.

we need a quarter of million people on the ground. Plain and simple. Some of the SOP's and rules also need to be rewritten. At this point to me, it almost looks like things need to get nasty for a time in order to ensure things better in the future. If we walk down this same road, with other nations using it as a proxy now, it seems like the best scenario is that we continue to tread water.

This is a similar attitude heald among many Marines here. Many vets. Including higher ups in my company.

A fascinating report today lends more weight to those who suspect that certain bellwether bombings in Iraq are being carried out by the U.S. in order to deliberately foster chaos throughout the region.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international ... e_continue

Several credible commentators have presented intriguing evidence that clearly suggests some of the major bombings being carried out in Iraq are the handiwork of those who wish to keep the country mired in a state of anarchy and chaos.

Preceding comments made by former U.S. envoy to the United Nations John Bolton on the weekend, that the U.S. "has no strategic interest" in a united Iraq, an agenda to maintain division and ethnic tension in Iraq can be seen as long term plan and the only way to finally capture and enslave a country that has historically thrown out its occupiers on every occasion.

In 1982, Oded Yinon, an official from the Israeli Foreign Affairs office, wrote, "To dissolve Iraq is even more important for us than dissolving Syria. In the short term, it's Iraqi power that constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. The Iran-Iraq war tore Iraq apart and provoked its downfall. All manner of inter-Arab conflict help us and accelerate our goal of breaking up Iraq into small, diverse pieces."

That agenda was again underscored last year when Daniel Pipes, a highly influential Straussian Neo-Con media darling, told the New York Sun that a civil war would aid the US and Israel because it would entangle Iran and Syria and enable those countries to be picked off by the new world empire without the need to sell a direct invasion to the public.

This is precisely the line of propaganda the Bush administration has now chosen to adopt following a U.S. raid on an Iranian consulate in Iraq and today's allegations that Iranians were directly involved in an attack on a US compound in Karbala, Iraq, that killed five US soldiers.

Stephen Zunes , professor of Politics and chair of the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco, wrote that the plan to keep Iraq broken up and in permanent strife befitted the Neo-Con's overarching goal to prevent the emergence of pan-Arab nationalism.

"Top analysts in the CIA and State Department, as well as large numbers of Middle East experts, warned that a U.S. invasion of Iraq could result in a violent ethnic and sectarian conflict. Even some of the war's intellectual architects acknowledged as much: In a 1997 paper, prior to becoming major figures in the Bush foreign policy team, David Wurmser, Richard Perle, and Douglas Feith predicted that a post-Saddam Iraq would likely be "ripped apart" by sectarianism and other cleavages but called on the United States to "expedite" such a collapse anyway."

McGovern references another highly suspicious event occurred in September 2005, when British SAS were caught attempting to stage a terror attack by disguising themselves as Arabs and attacking Iraqi police. The soldiers were arrested and taken to a nearby jail where they were confronted and interrogated by an Iraqi judge.

If our soldiers are there and our taxes are paying for it, I care. But it's the same attitude I take with Palestine. We can't force them to change. Setting up a representitive government doesn't mean sh*t if the people don't want it. So let them kill each other, or better yet, divide it up. If they can't play nice make them each sit in thier own corners until they can.

I really hate it when an entire groups of people are characterized by extremist elements in their society.

I don't agree with buffalohed or broken iris. That being said, not for one minute since the whole war in Iraq talk started in early 2002 have I believed it was within American capability to make Iraq into the country the United States wants it to be. It can only be the country Iraqis want it to be, and, quite simply, I don't think Iraqis want it to be just one country. So long as it's artificially forced to be a certain kind of place there is going to be violence and conflict. It doesn't much matter whether the United States has people with guns over there.

So your interests in RM have expanded beyond Rosie O'Donnel, eh?

huh? He's posted about the Iraq war since you were 14 or 15.

That's just lovely. What a bunch of callous fucks these current administration bastards are.

That's disturbing

Yes, I am well aware. He used to post quite frequently but his most recent post prior to this was a Rosie O'Donnell thread. Maybe I just haven't been seeing his posts but it seems that he's been absent for quite some time.

Hrmmm? This quote by itself seems only to imply that the United States is considering the idea of partitioning Iraq into semi autonomous states for the sake of DECREASING ethnic strife. Unless I'm misreading this, it follows Peter Van Wieren's claim that only a divided Iraq could conceivably be peaceful, or at least its what most Iraqis want.

I should see if I can dig up what I said about partitioning Iraq before the war started. I supported the idea then, but I don't think it would work now. My concern back then still exists now, in that, there would still be wild fighting over the oil and Baghdad.

There would probably be plenty of fighting, but I don't think there's any chance it would be worse under a partition plan than a plan attempting to keep the country together. The bigger problem would be to make the plan acceptable within the region, but I'm not averse to telling Turkey to fuck right the hell off. It doesn't have any leverage anyway.