She is not a friend of the US.

Considering what has been done in our name during the last 6 1/2yrs., it is not hard to see why much of the civilized world is not a friend of the U.S.

The WSJ editorial board would point out that the story pre-dates the troop surge of 2007, and that since then the U.S.'s counter-insurgency strategy has shown remarkable progress. They would go on to say that it would be a disaster for a President Obama to abandon Iraq, to squander the progress achieved at such great sacrifice, to fail to secure a very real possibility that democracy may take root in the Middle East. It's a position they will continue to take pains to articulate in the coming months. At least I'm guessing they will. I mean, I don't really read the WSJ. Really, if you already know what they're going to say, what's the point? Besides which, they're wrong.

I might recommend a quick reading of Michael Yon, who has done similar research with similar results, but remains in area. I realize that "telecom" has reached his/her conclusions, but a truly open mind may wish to look at updated data. Yon reported what they are reporting in 2005 and 2006, but has also reported on the changes since. Don't limit your data input to only what fits your world view.

http://michaelyon-online.com/

Don't limit your data input to only what fits your world view.

i agree. including the mounds of data from the US military itself that contradicts him, especially about quotes like this:

As a result, the militias have lost their reason for existence and are getting beaten back or co-opted.

if America goes into a country, decimates its infrastructure, kills hundreds of thousands of civilians, establishes permanent military bases, co-opts its chief industry (oil), allows looting of millenia-old artifacts, creates a strong insurgency by remaining for several years, how in the world are we supposed to take seriously a guy like Yon who decides to declare "we're making progress"?

"progress"? you mean, trying desperately to undo all of the above?

enough of this. debating whether or not there's "progress" after what's been done in Iraq is like a rapist debating on TZv whether or not his victim is "making progress" in therapy.

Again, it is NOT 'confused', muddle-headed, mistaken or gullible impressions written as (talking-point) positions in the WSJ; it is NOT that the banter is simple "wrong."

It is pre-meditated and designed LIES.

It is the 'social engineering' by myth infestation. This is the 'dumbing down' of the widest public, down below commonsense to lobotomized wage-droid.

A sort of proof in evidence is that 'they' (fascist hatetalk media) are the origin where the tactic labelled 'social engineering' was coined and circulated from, to be charged against who 'they' see as opposing nationalistic fascism by standing for individual interests in regional or locality-relevant issues and groups, (such as so-called 'environmentalists' 'vegetarians' 'bicyclists' 'cultural diversity activists' 'public-employee unionists' 'secular educators' 'GBLTs' etc., each 'type' being accused at one point or another by WSJ-'types' for spreading 'social engineering,' when the very plurality of the distinct interests and groups being accused, makes outright laughable any charge -- 'social engineering' -- of 'one label fitting all,' explaining everything).

The only interest in 'engineering' a uniform totality of 'society' is the nationalist's interest; and as Rocker 'off his' Raygun himself said, it is laughable that 'a man from the federal government can come here to our locality to help us.'

Whatever 'talk-point' words the fascist WSJ-types accuse others of, is prior-formed words pre-meditated as what 'they' themselves are doing. (Cite: Frank Luntz's 'focus group'-tested wordwork, "Luntz Memo on ..." .)

The LIARS promoting war criminality, totalitarianism, fascism, are NOT errant "wrong", but deliberately demonizing cultural myth.

In Rash Lamebrain, or WSJ, accusing others of the conscious guilt trying to hide in the speaker's own mind -- using offense as its defense, my Dad's swarthy sum of it applies, a skunk smells his own self first.

One "narrow mission" of the US military in Iraq is to escort the convoys carrying all that pizza, ice cream and Red Bull to our troops who so desperately need it.

Be All You Can Be.

"Don't limit your data input to only what fits your world view.

i agree. including the mounds of data from the US military itself that contradicts him ..."

And, as usual, you will find tons of stuff that supports Yon and tons of stuff that doesn't. When you have family serving in Iraq (as I do) you get a totally different view than those who don't and rely on the media to give them information.

I continue to believe our military is the only thing that keeps us safe from crazy muslims (versus non-crazy muslims). I also supported the war when it started, I believe it was entered into for a noble reason and I continue to believe that it is important that we are there. This from a parent with two soldiers in Iraq.

Just one of the many, many reasons I WON'T be voting for Obama.

And, as usual, you will find tons of stuff that supports Yon and tons of stuff that doesn't.

so, then...?

When you have family serving in Iraq (as I do) you get a totally different view than those who don't and rely on the media to give them information.

yes, you do. you get the narrow view of one soldier or group of soldiers, not the view of the over 100,000 currently serving. and, of course, each of those soldiers has their own view--so you don't have the "inside scopp" on what's "really" going on. you just have a different view.

and, by the way, CNN and FOX are on TV almost constantly in bases in Iraq.