Iraqis Lead Final Purge Of Al-Qaeda

THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! noone wants to hear the positive! i do! everyone hates bush, whatever, that doesnt mean you have to push and demean our troops when their doing the best they can and making progress every day!

You are not alone

keep it up man, no matter what they say about the war and how justifieable it is were there, were going to be there, and we might as well support the guys over there, if we really want it to end, lets end with a W

Errm, can you people not see how ridiculously silly this story is? Or are you so desperate for "good news" that you'll jump on it the second you see the headline.

Think about this for a minute, most of the really bad insurgency movements aren't active fighters, they're hidden IED bombers. These kinds of raids happen all the time, it hasn't stopped the violence from escalating.

Furthermore, what proof is there that this group was " the last of Al-Qaeda?" You guys are aware that Al-Qaeda is a movement not an army right? It trains standalone operatives, it can't BE defeated by soldiers because it's not an organization with a traditional chain of command. It doesn't matter if there was only one Al-Qaeda person in the whole country, that's all it takes to train more and start more guerilla and terrorist attacks. It's even feasible for that one person to do it alone, that's the whole point of a terrorist attack after all.

Also, most of the really bad attacks don't come from Al-Qaeda, they come from small insurgency movements from all across the country.

Sure this was a significant victory in some ways, but among how many setbacks? Does this really, TRULY defeat our enemy or is it just a temporary relief? For that matter, who's to say this story isn't total bullshit spin? The Times is owned by Rupert Murdoch after all.

If you guys really support our troops, stop murdering them for your own ego. The American people want them home, the Iraqi people want us gone, has been a geopolitical disaster, we can't afford the war anymore and it has only made enemies out of people who were willing to be our friends. A war of attrition cannot be won, by definition. The Iraq war is, in reality, not even a war. It is an occupation. If you have to engage in large military engagements at all during an occupation, something is seriously wrong.

Don't believe me? Ask the dozens of military officials who have all been fired or resigned out of anger when they questioned or tried (unsuccessfully) to change Iraq war policy. They say the "war" was past the point of no return by the end of '05, I trust them more than I trust Rupert Murdoch.

4 of 12 mission objectives accomplished, yeah, we're making a lot of progress

You're looking at old data here. 15 of the 18 Political Objectives set out for Iraq have now been met.

Forgive me for being skeptical, especially when I've been told that things are improving (which they are not) for the past 5 years.

What you believe is irrelevant. The 5 year timeline is irrelevant to this discussion.

Incidents of violence are way down? Perhaps you haven't been paying attention to the news recently. Yes, violence is down, but it is by no means low or acceptable nor does it show signs of improvement. And it certainly isn't caused by action from U.S. troops.

Facts are facts. Violence is down. I'm not sure what your standard for low or acceptable is, but by any objective measure the reduction in violence is real and I'm not sure how you can characterize that as anything but an improvement. I'm not sure how you know that US Troops have had no role in reducing violence and I'm not sure what relevance that has anyway. Our troops are providing support for the Iraqi Army and Police Forces. You want to give them credit for the reduction in violence . . . go right ahead . . . doesn't hurt my feelings one bit, nor does it hurt the feelings of our troops.

What is success? What is an acceptable time to pull out? If we're making progress, why don't we continue that progress by setting up timetables and deadlines to get things ready and hole people accountable? Or are you asking everyone to just stay the course?

Success would mean leaving a stable Iraq that can protect itself from both foreign and domestic enemies. I'm sure that the military does have timetables and deadlines. I'm equally sure that those timetables and deadlines should be established independent of politics. I'm not asking anyone to stay the course . . . and neither is anyone else.

Even if their government stablizies and all of the religious, ethnic and other conflicts cease and everyone recognizes the rule of law, what about a year after we pull out? How about 5 years or ten years? What if their government collapses then and the country goes down the drain? What can we say then? That it's their fault this time and not ours? Isn't that still failure?

If that happens and Iraq becomes a haven for terrorists or becomes a puppet of its neighbors . . . then yes, we will have failed. At that point, it will be some other president's job to deal with those consequences. I'm guessing that if that president is a Democrat that they would have your support . . . right?

They could have completed everything good that they have with several special forces teams instead of a full-scale invasion.

This was very good,

Thanks