Al-Anbar turned over to Iraqi's!!!

[Federal Farmer]

To Mods and Admin, please move this to the NEWS section.

Anbar Turned Over To Iraqis
By Lt Col P

A real turn of events in Iraq.

If you had told me, this time in 2004, that we'd be turning over Al-Anbar province to the Iraqis-- and not part of some shameful withdrawal, but with a real prospect of success-- I'd have said that you were smoking crack.

How did we get here? National leadership, and theater leadership, that learned some hard lessons and refused to give up. There was never a question that the Marines and sailors and soldiers were up to the task. The big question was whether the senior leaders in and out of uniform would also have the stones to stick it out. After Fallujah One and over the summer of 2004, I wouldn't have made a bet on it. But, instead, here we are.

We got here by dint of strong, hard decsions from the top; by incorporating the lessons of mistakes and missteps; by the willingness of commanders on the ground to grasp the situation, and then take the risks needed to gain the trust and goodwill of the population. We got here by the never-ending hard work and can-do attitude of tens of thousands of Americans and Iraqis and allies, living and fighting under discomfort and near-constant attack. We got here by the sacrifice of hundreds and hundreds of good young men and women, who did their duty regardless of the danger, and paid the ultimate price.

This doesn't mean the end of the Iraq campaign, and Anbar has a tough row to hoe, but they now have a fighting chance. They have an opportunity to succeed.

This is the 10th of 18 Iraqi Provinces to be turned over to the Iraqi Provincial government.

WHY ISN'T THIS BEING SPLASHED ALL OVER THE FRONT PAGE OF EVERY NEWSPAPER IN THE COUNTRY???

Oh, that's right, the Libtard lamestream media only cares about running down our military and their efforts, but when something good happens, it's crickets <chirp><chirp><chirp>.

WHERE'S THE OUTRAGE???

 

[Pandora]

The news is in the tank for Messiah Obama, the war must be going bad for messiah obama to win, because he is running on the war. He needs this country doing terrible he needs Iraq doing terrible for him to be able to campaign about change and hope. He needs every drop of hope sucked out of you so you will buy his hope and his change.

But we should talk about the stuff the media wont talk about.


Iraq is going well, and soon they will be able to manage, and hopefully never fall to a dictator again

 

[BigRob]

To Mods and Admin, please move this to the NEWS section.



This is the 10th of 18 Iraqi Provinces to be turned over to the Iraqi Provincial government.

WHY ISN'T THIS BEING SPLASHED ALL OVER THE FRONT PAGE OF EVERY NEWSPAPER IN THE COUNTRY???

Oh, that's right, the Libtard lamestream media only cares about running down our military and their efforts, but when something good happens, it's crickets <chirp><chirp><chirp>.

WHERE'S THE OUTRAGE???

Don't tell DarwinismRocks, he will claim the US is bribing the entire world.

 

[Pandora]

Don't tell DarwinismRocks, he will claim the US is bribing the entire world.

LOL

are we bribing them with the oil we stole from Iraq?

 

[vyo476]

To Mods and Admin, please move this to the NEWS section.

I moved it to Important News, could have gone with World News but I figured you'd prefer this.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I have read it evry news thing I have seen, so Im not sure what your issue it.
And hate to break it to you, but the news if for profit. and you know what? most people dont care about this, as most dont grasp what it means. Its not a exciting story to 90% of the public.

I love people think the media is sooo liberal....its about one thing ....$$$$$$$$$$$

As for the news itself, its great news, and I cant wait till its all handed over to them. Maybe then we get get the boots on the ground needed for Afganistan.

 

[Federal Farmer]

I moved it to Important News, could have gone with World News but I figured you'd prefer this.

Thanks vyo, good call.

 

[Federal Farmer]

I have read it evry news thing I have seen, so Im not sure what your issue it.
And hate to break it to you, but the news if for profit. and you know what? most people dont care about this, as most dont grasp what it means. Its not a exciting story to 90% of the public.

I love people think the media is sooo liberal....its about one thing ....$$$$$$$$$$$

As for the news itself, its great news, and I cant wait till its all handed over to them. Maybe then we get get the boots on the ground needed for Afganistan.

Well PFOS, some people may not be too excited about it, but around here, where everybody in this town knows someone who has either served in, or is currently in Afghanistan and/or Iraq it GREAT news, because that means we're that much closer to our friends and family coming home again, FOR GOOD!

Oh, and one other thing, you really need to stop that "more boots on the ground in Afghanistan" BS, because it only serves to make you look a whole lot dumber than I know you to be. There are currently over 47,000 coalition troops in Afghanistan, with more being rotated in as needed. I know that you're only going on what you've heard that some of the Commanders in the Pentagon are saying, but NO Commander is ever going to be happy unless he's got at least a Division for every Company he really needs. If they're saying that they 'need' 10,000 more troops, that means that he'd "like" to have an additional 1000, and he can get by with 100 if he really has to, but he REALLY needs 10.

 

[Libsmasher]

I have read it evry news thing I have seen, so Im not sure what your issue it.
And hate to break it to you, but the news if for profit. and you know what? most people dont care about this, as most dont grasp what it means. Its not a exciting story to 90% of the public.

I love people think the media is sooo liberal....its about one thing ....$$$$$$$$$$$

As for the news itself, its great news, and I cant wait till its all handed over to them. Maybe then we get get the boots on the ground needed for Afganistan.

Just a quick comment here - the idea that the news is just for money is silly.

 

[BigRob]

Just a quick comment here - the idea that the news is just for money is silly.

I dunno, mainstream media does exist to turn a profit. You can find exceptions, but I do not think anyone looks at CNN or NBC, or FOX and thinks they are not in it to make money.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Well PFOS, some people may not be too excited about it, but around here, where everybody in this town knows someone who has either served in, or is currently in Afghanistan and/or Iraq it GREAT news, because that means we're that much closer to our friends and family coming home again, FOR GOOD!

Oh, and one other thing, you really need to stop that "more boots on the ground in Afghanistan" BS, because it only serves to make you look a whole lot dumber than I know you to be. There are currently over 47,000 coalition troops in Afghanistan, with more being rotated in as needed. I know that you're only going on what you've heard that some of the Commanders in the Pentagon are saying, but NO Commander is ever going to be happy unless he's got at least a Division for every Company he really needs. If they're saying that they 'need' 10,000 more troops, that means that he'd "like" to have an additional 1000, and he can get by with 100 if he really has to, but he REALLY needs 10.

I said put more boots on teh groune in Iraq, they called it the surge....it worked....All that we have done in Afganistan is more bombings, that have killed more and more Civilians turning them against us. Al Quida and the Taliban are making gains all the time, and unless we do something, we will lose what we did gain in the first place. Afganistan is a large nation, hard to control and we have far far less troops there, yet somehow exect things to get better not worse at the same time more troops ( alone with other key things of course) have helped us in Iraq? We needed more on the ground there from day one, same as Iraq.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I dunno, mainstream media does exist to turn a profit. You can find exceptions, but I do not think anyone looks at CNN or NBC, or FOX and thinks they are not in it to make money.

I was going to comment, but my don't want to get yelled at for personal attacks on libs

 

[BigRob]

I said put more boots on teh groune in Iraq, they called it the surge....it worked....All that we have done in Afganistan is more bombings, that have killed more and more Civilians turning them against us. Al Quida and the Taliban are making gains all the time, and unless we do something, we will lose what we did gain in the first place. Afganistan is a large nation, hard to control and we have far far less troops there, yet somehow exect things to get better not worse at the same time more troops ( alone with other key things of course) have helped us in Iraq? We needed more on the ground there from day one, same as Iraq.

Actually in Afghanistan we already "surged" and sent an additional 5,000 marines in. Add to that NATO deployments make up a large part of the force as well, and our control area is much smaller.

The problem in Afghanistan is fundamentally different than Iraq. Afghanistan has no real export to rely on. (Outside of drugs) Their economy is garbage. The conflict there is not really religious based, the mountains in Pakistan provide a lot of problems. Even if we put 100,000 more soldiers in, we still get the Cambodia problem that we had in Vietnam. Unless we want to spread the war, that will continue to be a major problem.

Further, the government in Kabul has no control outside of the actual city, there is no real national unity to build a decent security force that will enforce the rules of the government. Iraq and Afghanistan are two different scenarios, and simply adding soldiers will not solve the problem.

 

[Libsmasher]

I dunno, mainstream media does exist to turn a profit. You can find exceptions, but I do not think anyone looks at CNN or NBC, or FOX and thinks they are not in it to make money.

OF COURSE their ULTIMATE goal of >>NETWORKS<< is to make money - what I took issue with is the notion that the >>NEWS<< has a particular slant to make money, as implied by piffel. Since Fox has the opposite agenda from all the lib networks - how can their news content be motivated by making money? BOTH Fox AND the lib networks make money. Clearly, the news content is motivated by something else than money.

 

[BigRob]

OF COURSE their ULTIMATE goal of >>NETWORKS<< is to make money - what I took issue with is the notion that the >>NEWS<< has a particular slant to make money, as implied by piffel. Since Fox has the opposite agenda from all the lib networks - how can their news content be motivated by making money? BOTH Fox AND the lib networks make money. Clearly, the news content is motivated by something else than money.

Well, I don't agree persay. Each network needs to attract their viewers in order to get revenue etc... so depending on what their viewers want to see, that can dictate the programming to an extent in my opinion.