How is it that the surge is working?

[Narmer]

I keep hearing on the television and in the papers that the surge is working. How? First, people like to point to Anbar province. Well, Anbar's transformation began last fall, not in January. The other issue is that the people of Anbar decided (for themselves) to take action against the foreign terrorists/fighters, not because of American power. Therefore, the "success" there was local. What's worse is that the people of Anbar and the Baghdad government still don't trust each other.

The other issue is that the terrorists/fighters have simply moved elsewhere, a la whack-a-mole. Now they are raising hell in other provinces.

Third, the political process is still premature because of the severe distrust between the various parties.

Fourth is the American death-tolls. Usually during the summer-time, American deaths are very low because the weather over there is so severe and the terrorists/fighters find it difficult to fight in such extreme weather. But it's been relatively high this year. In fact, road-side bombs are at their highest levels ever.

Fifth, since the Shia death squads managed to purge the Sunnis out of Baghdad, they are now responsible for most of the American deaths in that city and the surrounding areas. How is that progress when one group (a larger and more lethal one I might add) picks off where the other left?

Sixth, the British have failed miserabely in the south and (in the coming months) are about to retreat to the Basra airport where they will make easier targets. In fact, the warlords in the south can't wait that long and are killing them at a higher rate.

Seventh, Turkey is poised to invade Iraq.

Eight, Iraq is facing a humanitarian crisis unlike any seen outside Africa.

So, tell me, how is this surge working?

 

[blackangst1]

edit: nevermind.

 

[Lemon law]

Methinks any attempt to compare GWB and Sun Tzu is doomed to absolute failure. But Narmer did make a point worth noting. It looks like the best know insurgent leader in Al Sadr is losing central command and control leadership as the Mufti army turns into warring camps. At the same time, other Iraqi insurgencies further fragment. Its now a question of if divide and conquer can work or if the more anarchy there is, the harder it is to get a grip on the problem. I somewhat suspect the latter but it implies there will be no central co-ordination to the insurgencies and that the occupation will just have to endure perpetual and random attacks.

It still boils down to what Shinseki said before we went in. Its going to take on the order of 500,000 troops to police Iraq. The US is about 300,000 short-------hmmmmmmmmm where are we going to get them from?

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
It still boils down to what Shinseki said before we went in. Its going to take on the order of 500,000 troops to police Iraq. The US is about 300,000 short-------hmmmmmmmmm where are we going to get them from?

That's what they've been training Iraqi defensive forces for (whether you agree with that strategy or not). Unfortunately, the first attempt at training was a complete clusterf'k. The latest training is going much better. Read some of the independent journalists like Michael Yon and Michael Totten that go to Iraq on their own dime. They give a pretty fair assessment of things and while the IDF is not up to our level of expectations, their training and performance has gotten much better.

 

[Stunt]

I don't understand how this "troop surge" is going to make things different considering there were more US troops in Iraq at other times in the war.

The following is the number of troops in Iraq with time:
March 2003 (invasion of iraq) 192,000
May 2003 ("mission accomplished") 146,000
January 2004 (lowest troop count) 109,000
January 2005 (first iraq elections) 159,000
October 2005 (referendum on consitution) 157,000
December 2005 (parlementary elections) 159,000

"According to the spokesman, the number U.S. forces, including the nearly 30,000 additional soldiers President George W. Bush sent into Iraq as part of his "surge" plan this year, would be around 156,000 or 157,000 if no units were moving in or out." link

 

[keird]

I think that the U.S. military has changed it's tactics and is moving away from the big FOB mentality. We have units living within Iraqi neighborhoods which changes the dynamics of how insurgents operate.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Stunt
I don't understand how this "troop surge" is going to make things different considering there were more US troops in Iraq at other times in the war.

It isn't just the number of troops but a major change in tactics. Before, the troops were just kind of hunkered down in the bases and would go out on patrols. Now, since Petraeus has been in charge, they are performing counter-insurgency operations (there were two major offensives in the past couple of months) and establishing bases in the towns and villages that they clear of Al-Qaeda types. IDF forces are eventually put in control of these areas.

 

[techs]

Last I heard is the U.S. was arming the Sunni so they would fight Al-Qaeda. And the Sunni, now that they have arms, have withdrawn from the Iraqi government in droves. And that now the Shia Prime Minister, Maliki, is making nice with his co-Shia, Abjamiened (sp?) of Iran to help him against the Sunnis.
And its 130 degrees in Iraq in August, and that naturally attacks are down, due to the heat.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: techs
Last I heard is the U.S. was arming the Sunni so they would fight Al-Qaeda. And the Sunni, now that they have arms, have withdrawn from the Iraqi government in droves. And that now the Shia Prime Minister, Maliki, is making nice with his co-Shia, Abjamiened (sp?) of Iran to help him against the Sunnis.
And its 130 degrees in Iraq in August, and that naturally attacks are down, due to the heat.

If the terrorists/insurgents were to get their wish of booting the US out of Iraq so they could have the country left to their own devices, now would be the time to attack and attack spectacularly. Petraeus is making his report to Congress in September and an attack to sway public and political opinion heavy to the negative side is needed by the insurgents/terrorists.

The heat hasn't stopped the US forces with their counter-insurgency operations.

 

[trenchfoot]

bush, cheney and their supporters want us to stay in iraq permanently. they will do whatever it takes to keep us there and is striving to create a scenario there where even after they leave office we will be faced with a very difficult and hopefully (in his mind) impossible task of egressing ourselves out of there without making things a whole lot worse than they are now.

he is investing untold billions of our tax dollars in what he hopes will be permanent US owned property and infrastructure and also is striving to get as many of our troops killed and maimed there in the hopes of promoting a sense that we're in too far to ever consider pulling out.

the US owned carpetbagging oil companies are also doing their part by assimilating and integrating as much of the iraqi oil producing infrastructure as they can to make it as hard as possible for the iraqi's to wean themselves from the US producers' proprietary methodologies that are being hardwired into their production capabilities. same goes with the iraqi's other basic needs.

the current administration, despite their lies to the contrary, want iraq to be permanently dependent on US military power for their security and other essential needs. the trends they have set since invading the place points directly to that.

edit - spl

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: tweaker2
bush, cheney and their supporters want us to stay in iraq permanently. they will do whatever it takes to keep us there and is striving to create a scenario there where even after they leave office we will be faced with a very difficult and hopefully (in his mind) impossible task of egressing ourselves out of there without making things a whole lot worse than they are now.

he is investing untold billions of our tax dollars in what he hopes will be permanent US owned property and infrastructure and also is striving to get as many of our troops killed and maimed there in the hopes of promoting a sense that we're in too far to ever consider pulling out.

the US owned carpetbagging oil companies are also doing their part by assimilating and integrating as much of the iraqi oil producing infrastructure as they can to make it as hard as possible for the iraqi's to wean themselves from the US producers' proprietary methodologies that are being hardwired into their production capabilities. same goes with the iraqi's other basic needs.

the current administration, despite their lies to the contrary, want iraq to be permanently dependent on US military power for their security and other essential needs. the trends they have set since invading the place points directly to that.

edit - spl

I believe tweaker2 is 100% correct and quite a coup they pulled off. GWB&co. oil interests let the US taxpayer do the heavy lifting for them as they were able to displace the previous French and German oil contracts that Saddam had. And now have set up US and British oil contracts as the defacto entities the democratic Iraqi government agrees to deal with.

But the insurgency is still keeping oil production below Saddam oil for food production levels. And my guess is that the post war Iraqi government that will end up prevailing when the dust settles, will nullify all those oil contracts in the process. GWB&co will be out of office by that time, I doubt the US taxpayer will ever be duped into doing oil company bidding again, and we will see the Iraq war as exactly the naked oil theft tweaker2 described.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: tweaker2
bush, cheney and their supporters want us to stay in iraq permanently. they will do whatever it takes to keep us there and is striving to create a scenario there where even after they leave office we will be faced with a very difficult and hopefully (in his mind) impossible task of egressing ourselves out of there without making things a whole lot worse than they are now.

he is investing untold billions of our tax dollars in what he hopes will be permanent US owned property and infrastructure and also is striving to get as many of our troops killed and maimed there in the hopes of promoting a sense that we're in too far to ever consider pulling out.

the US owned carpetbagging oil companies are also doing their part by assimilating and integrating as much of the iraqi oil producing infrastructure as they can to make it as hard as possible for the iraqi's to wean themselves from the US producers' proprietary methodologies that are being hardwired into their production capabilities. same goes with the iraqi's other basic needs.

the current administration, despite their lies to the contrary, want iraq to be permanently dependent on US military power for their security and other essential needs. the trends they have set since invading the place points directly to that.

edit - spl

I agree with most of what you say aside from the part where Bush wants troops to be killed and maimed. No one but the terrorists want that. If we could have taken Iraq's oil bloodlessly, we would have.

I take no issue with anything else you say, and I support Bush doing it. :thumbsup:

 

[StageLeft]

It is not working. Everyone knows that, some are just not honest about it.

 

[trenchfoot]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: tweaker2
bush, cheney and their supporters want us to stay in iraq permanently. they will do whatever it takes to keep us there and is striving to create a scenario there where even after they leave office we will be faced with a very difficult and hopefully (in his mind) impossible task of egressing ourselves out of there without making things a whole lot worse than they are now.

he is investing untold billions of our tax dollars in what he hopes will be permanent US owned property and infrastructure and also is striving to get as many of our troops killed and maimed there in the hopes of promoting a sense that we're in too far to ever consider pulling out.

the US owned carpetbagging oil companies are also doing their part by assimilating and integrating as much of the iraqi oil producing infrastructure as they can to make it as hard as possible for the iraqi's to wean themselves from the US producers' proprietary methodologies that are being hardwired into their production capabilities. same goes with the iraqi's other basic needs.

the current administration, despite their lies to the contrary, want iraq to be permanently dependent on US military power for their security and other essential needs. the trends they have set since invading the place points directly to that.

edit - spl

I agree with most of what you say aside from the part where Bush wants troops to be killed and maimed. No one but the terrorists want that. If we could have taken Iraq's oil bloodlessly, we would have.

I take no issue with anything else you say, and I support Bush doing it. :thumbsup:

you make a very good point. i was in a less than objective frame of mind at the time and i'm now reconsidering that comment. i may either retract it or modify it in the very near future.

thanks for pointing that out.:thumbsup:

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: tweaker2

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: tweaker2
bush, cheney and their supporters want us to stay in iraq permanently. they will do whatever it takes to keep us there and is striving to create a scenario there where even after they leave office we will be faced with a very difficult and hopefully (in his mind) impossible task of egressing ourselves out of there without making things a whole lot worse than they are now.

he is investing untold billions of our tax dollars in what he hopes will be permanent US owned property and infrastructure and also is striving to get as many of our troops killed and maimed there in the hopes of promoting a sense that we're in too far to ever consider pulling out.

the US owned carpetbagging oil companies are also doing their part by assimilating and integrating as much of the iraqi oil producing infrastructure as they can to make it as hard as possible for the iraqi's to wean themselves from the US producers' proprietary methodologies that are being hardwired into their production capabilities. same goes with the iraqi's other basic needs.

the current administration, despite their lies to the contrary, want iraq to be permanently dependent on US military power for their security and other essential needs. the trends they have set since invading the place points directly to that.

edit - spl

I agree with most of what you say aside from the part where Bush wants troops to be killed and maimed. No one but the terrorists want that. If we could have taken Iraq's oil bloodlessly, we would have.

I take no issue with anything else you say, and I support Bush doing it. :thumbsup:

you make a very good point. i was in a less than objective frame of mind at the time and i'm now reconsidering that comment. i may either retract it or modify it in the very near future.

thanks for pointing that out.:thumbsup:

there's no need to retract what you said. it falls in line with what the republicans have been saying for years: "Too many soldiers have died for us to just leave."

To Cheney, the soldiers are nothing more than cannon fodder/pawns in their great game against other world powers. Fuck them.

 

[StageLeft]

Yeah, things there are going great since the surge

 

[eilute]

Originally posted by: Narmer
I keep hearing on the television and in the papers that the surge is working. How?

It depends on how you define "success."

 

[eilute]

Originally posted by: techs
And its 130 degrees in Iraq in August, and that naturally attacks are down, due to the heat.

I think the drop does have something to do with the increased U.S. presence. I wonder what will happen, however, when the temperature is down to 110 and everyone is half starved from Ramadan.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Yeah, things there are going great since the surge

That has less to do with the military aspect (which has been successful) and more to do with the political process which is currently the most problematic part of the equation.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Yeah, things there are going great since the surge

That has less to do with the military aspect (which has been successful) and more to do with the political process which is currently the most problematic part of the equation.

It's all related.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Yeah, things there are going great since the surge

That has less to do with the military aspect (which has been successful) and more to do with the political process which is currently the most problematic part of the equation.

It's all related.

Didn't say they weren't. Just different parts of the equation.

The big question on the military side, is how long can these troop levels be sustained despite the military progress IMHO. Because of the reduction of the size of the armed forces in the 90s, who knows how long troops can take near constant deployment.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
It is not working. Everyone knows that, some are just not honest about it.

What is your source for that statement, beyond your obvious personal skepticism?

 

[Lemon law]

I certainly can't answer for Skoorb, but I thought I would point out that I just cane across a seven page New York times article on Yahoo news regarding Afghanistan.
Since is copyrighted, I am not sure if I can post a link, but after reading the article, I came away with some dominant impressions on this 8/12/07 article and where
they placed the blame.

So I wonder if you could look around palehorse74 and see if you can find the article. And then post back on what you think of the article.

And to somewhat comment on the Skoorb link, the Malki Visit to Iran introduces new political jokers into the deck. Worse case scenario, Iran may somewhat go it alone
and start a Persian on Arab rift that will spread across the mid-east which is the warnings of various Sunni groups. But I also wonder how much long the myth of a democratically elected Iraqi government can last if it can't manage to get any Iraqi agreement on anything. But other threads point out that perhaps some neighboring
governments could unite to provide certain guarantees to all the major Iraqi factions. Perhaps making the US surge now somewhat irrelevant as larger events may now dominate.

We shall see.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
It is not working. Everyone knows that, some are just not honest about it.

It is working. The question is, is it working well enough and is it too late?

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Yeah, things there are going great since the surge

That has less to do with the military aspect (which has been successful) and more to do with the political process which is currently the most problematic part of the equation.

How has the military part of the surge been working? I'd like to know. And another thing, the new catchphrase in Washington D.C. seems to be "localization", meaning that the locals are taking the initiative and doing a much better job than the federal government in Baghdad. What I find odd is that this is now seen as a success. Well why don't you spit on my shoes and tell me it's raining while you're at it. The fact that locals are taking the initiative where the federales have failed IS INDICATIVE of a failed state and goes to show how far backwards Iraq has gone.