Guerilla Actions in Irak

As expected, the defense minister of the regime installed by America thinks that the US troops should stay until... 2018 to 2020!

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1444866320080115

Off topic (don't want to create another topic just for this):

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/c...X&modele=jdc_34

"U.S. to Transfer 4,200 Humvees to Iraqis


(Source: US Department of Defense; issued Jan. 17, 2008)



TAJI, Iraq --- A ceremony here today marked the beginning of a program to refurbish and transfer more than 4,200 up-armored Humvees over the next 13 months.

........................................ "

4200????? And theyr romanian allyes reeived under 20, if i remember right...



Iama

A Skirmish In Mosul Iraq

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/ma...tml?id=3760642n


It looks like 1st person shooter game, like recruitment ploy.

A little off-topic:

"ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told ministry students at her former church that the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a "task that is from God." "



Bruce Lee can beat Van Damme... God can beat Allah? We don't know yet, but they send tasks...

Iama

Most of the Iraqi national insurgency cooled off, bribed by the U.S. military who is paying their leaders on a monthly basis. A U.S. officer declared that he feels as an accountant, having to commute every month with packs of dollars between the local Sunni tribal chiefs.
And the foreign insurgents, the real "die hard" ones, fled to Afghanistan. That is why Iraq is now somehow more peaceful, compared with Afghanistan.

This post has been edited by Florin on September 09, 2008 01:45 am

So not only did the US manage to easily invade Iraq by allegedly paying Iraki generals, but now it managed to suppress the insurgency by allegedly paying the generals/leaders that refused to be paid in 2003 and decided to resist?

It's far-fetched, IMO.

So not only did the US manage to easily invade Iraq by allegedly paying Iraki generals, but now it managed to suppress the insurgency by allegedly paying the generals/leaders that refused to be paid in 2003 and decided to resist?

It's far-fetched, IMO.

Would that it were totally far fetched! However, Florin is partly correct; the U.S. has for some time been paying former Sunni Muslim insurgents, and basically it's worked so far.

Thousands of members of the so-called "Sons of Iraq" militias each receive approx. $300/ month pay from the U.S. military. The strategy has apparently brought some measure of security to Anbar province and has rolled back "al Qaida in Iraq" for the moment.

Even the U.S. military recognizes the irony of this situation; but one supposes it's not the first war in which combatants have switched alliance.

It's not clear how much this strategy has been responsible for the "success" of the Bush "surge". The war has many layers of complexity, as we know.

However, the crunch comes now; as the U.S. prepares to end occupation, the (mostly Shiite) Iraq govt. is supposed to pick up this payroll. At the moment Maliki and Co. is (surprise!) balking at doing so,

Key U.S. Iraq strategy in danger of collapse

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080820...clatchy/3023449

Thank you for your addition and support, "cnflyboy2000".

Considering what I am quoting from your message, I would say that those who in general oppose to Bush administration claim that in Iraq the situation cooled down because of these payments to the local Sunni militia, and those who support Bush administration claim that the situation cooled down because of the increased level of military personnel there - more "boots on the ground", in other words.

As you wrote, the truth is in the middle - as usual.