Originally Posted By Darkbeer Very interesting article written by two folks from the Brookings Institution. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30pollack.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07 /30/opinion/30pollack.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin</a> >>Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory†but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with. After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work. Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference. << Much more at the link....
Originally Posted By DAR Wow finally some reason injected into this discussion and from the NY Times no less.
Originally Posted By jonvn Didn't we talk about how with more troops, the folks will behave? Like having the cop on the front step causes daddy to stop beating mommy?
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 The only problem is that the cop can't stay on the front porch forever. Eventually we're going to have to withdraw troops, and Iraq needs to be stable enough to support itself. Unfortunately, that seems a long way off...
Originally Posted By gadzuux It's a "feel-good" puff piece. From today's SF Chronicle >> Missing cold, hard facts in 'good news' article Michael E. O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack neglect to tell us a number of unfortunate, but critical facts in their July 31 Open Forum piece, "A war we might just win." A few of these facts might put their opinions in a more balanced light. They were both supporters of the war in the beginning. They have both written numerous similar pieces, going back to 2003, telling all who would listen that Iraq would soon be fine. They have previously visited Iraq on trips paid for by the Defense Department. Their visits are tightly controlled and they meet Iraqis and U.S. personnel selected by the U.S. occupation authorities. Oh yes, they also neglected one other critical area - cold, hard statistics on civilian and military deaths and insurgent attacks. <<
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder And so.... <a href="http://baking.about.com/library/weekly/aa060998.htm" target="_blank">http://baking.about.com/librar y/weekly/aa060998.htm</a> basic puff pastry adapted from The Encyclopedia of Creative Cooking, edited by Charlotte Turgeon 2 cups of butter ice water 3-1/4 cups 3-times sifted all-purpose flour 1/2 teaspoon chilled lemon juice 3/4 cup ice water Place 1-1/4 cups butter in large mixing bowl filled with ice water. Knead with hands until butter has consistency of soft dough and is free from lumps. (You will have to remove your hands from the icy water several times during kneading process.) Place butter in double thickness of muslin or tea towel; squeeze to remove excess water. Rub ice cubes over working surface (a piece of marble, if possible) to chill thoroughly. Place butter on cold surface; shape evenly into rectangle about 1/2 inch thick. Place on dry piece of muslin or towel. Wrap; refrigerate. Thoroughly chill working surface again with ice. Sift flour with salt onto cold surface. With fingers work flour out from center to form ring. Cut remaining 1/4 cup butter into small pieces in center of ring. Chill working hand in ice water until cold; dry. Mix flour, small amount at a time, with butter inside ring by rubbing flour with butter between thumb and first 2 fingers. This breaks down butter to form small granules. Chill and dry hand frequently during process. Reshape ring; pour chilled lemon juice ans 1/4 cup ice water in center. Work flour mixture from inner ring into liquid, using 2 knives; add small amounts of water and work in flour mixture until all ingredients are moistened. Shape into smooth ball; sprinkle ball with additional sifted flour. Wrap in cloth; chill 30 minutes. Again ice cleaned working surface. Place dough on chilled, floured surface; roll into long, narrow 1/2-inch-thick rectangle. Remove butter from muslin; place in center of rectangle. Bring edge of rectangle nearest you up and over to center of butter. Brush off excess flour; press down gently. Fold left, then right sides to center. Brush again; press down gently. Brush top flap over; press down gently. Lift dough and re-flour surface, if necessary. Now begins the all-important part of making puff pastry--blending the butter into the dough. In all rolling and handling of dough care must be taken not to let butter break through dough, or air trapped between layers will escape. If this should happen, patch hole with small amount of flour. Air trapped between layers will expand when baked and cause pastry to puff. Roll gently, keeping rectangular shape; do not roll over ends. Fold edge nearest you to center; fold top edge to center. Fold top over to bottom edge. Make 1/2 turn to right; stick finger in top edge of dough to indicate starting position for next rolling step. Wrap securely in waxed paper; refrigerate 30 minutes. Remove dough from refrigerator; place on ices, floured surface with finger mark at top of working surface. Repeat 3 rolling, folding , and turning procedures as before; chill 30 minutes after second, third, and fourth rolling. After fifth roll, wrap; chill at least 3 hours. Roll out sixth and final roll as recipe directs; bake immediately. (After fifth roll, dough can be chilled overnight. Let stand at room temperature 30 minutes before rolling.) Enjoy!
Originally Posted By DAR <<It's a "feel-good" puff piece.>> Wrong it's article that injects reason into this discussion. Something many of us so called "military experts" have chosen not to do. But I guess when you have a myopic view of the situation that's what happens.
Originally Posted By jonvn I've heard from general news sources that the defense dept is reporting good progress now, and I hope that's true.
Originally Posted By gadzuux The reports I've been reading are that they've been moderately successful at reducing US casualties, but iraqi on iraqi violence is spiraling ever higher. July saw a 300% increase in fatalities over june, which was already bad. Additionally, this "provisional government" that we've created is going backwards - it has less legitimacy with every passing day. The US military is not going to "win" this war. They can't. The problems are greater than just stemming the daily bloodshed on the streets. A successful conclusion depends on a combination of diplomacy and strong-arming the leadership of the various religious factions. This is something that is probably impossible to do for the best of diplomats, which means that this administration never stood a chance. But hey - those military contractors are seeing bonanza payouts - the true "winners" of this war. And that's probably the intended outcome all along.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< The reports I've been reading are that they've been moderately successful at reducing US casualties, but iraqi on iraqi violence is spiraling ever higher. >>> Which, if you were fighting a war based on domestic policy back home rather than what's going on in the actual war zone, would be defined as "making good progress."
Originally Posted By Dabob2 The much more significant news this week was the largest Sunni party pulling its people out of the cabinet. That is not a good thing. It makes reconcilliation less likely, makes the Maliki government seem even more Shia-dominated to the average Sunni, and probably increases Iranian influence. The Times piece was interesting, but as gadzuux points out, highly likely to produce what it did, given the source and the conditions of access. I'm not saying there's no progress in Iraq, but it's very much a "one step forward, one (or more) steps back" situation either in the "whackamole" sense (one region improves its security, while another worsens), or in the larger sense (fewer Americans killed lately; but the most important Sunni bloc walks out of the cabinet). The Times piece gave details on the "one step forward" but, while acknowledging the one step back, mentioned it in passing, skewing the article as a whole.
Originally Posted By DAR <<The Times piece gave details on the "one step forward" but, while acknowledging the one step back, mentioned it in passing, skewing the article as a whole.>> And again it was kind of refreshing to see the times do that. With them it's mostly ten steps back to zero forward. Despite what some of you think our military has been just brilliant over there.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Stop with that strawman, please. No one here has said anything else. It's not the fault of the army/marines themselves that there has been such incompetence from the administration, or that they made the monumentally unwise decision to invade and occupy that country to begin with. They've done the best they could, won the military portion handily, and are now in the impossible position of being a square peg in the round hole that is Iraq's need for a political settlement. As for the Times, it's no more refreshing to me when they skew something to be more optimistic than it should be than when they skew something to be more pessimistic than it should be. Skewed is skewed.
Originally Posted By DAR I'm not creating a strawman. I just find it sad that we get one postive story in perhaps the most major newspaper the world over. And people still turn their noses up at the story.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I read the Times (do you subscribe?) and this was hardly the only positive story they published lately. Simply the only one linked to here. The Times is a huge operation. They have columnists and writers all over the map on Iraq, believe it or not. Let's not forget that it was the Times' Judy Miller who time and time again printed the administration's line on Saddam and WMD in the run-up to the war - then had people like Cheney going on Meet the Press and saying "you know, the NY Times just said the other day about WMD that..." - not mentioning, of course, that the White House was the Times' source to begin with!
Originally Posted By TomSawyer The military can win the war. I have no doubt about that. But a military cannot win the peace, and that's where it really matters.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Despite what some of you think our military has been just brilliant over there.*** Not all of em. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/04/iraq.family.slain/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/ 04/iraq.family.slain/index.html</a> Horrible, horrible story.
