Iraq surge did not work

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
500-600 people still die in sectarian violence across Iraq each month http://original.antiwar.com/updates/2010/08/03/tuesday-50-iraqis-killed-118-wounded/

And it's increasing as pull out, well sorta pull out, looms. As bribes run out to beg Sunni to stop killing US and Shi'a - Queta flag is rising again for Sunni will never live under who they consider infidels rule. That's why they don't vote and why no govt has been formed 5 months after vote. Iraq is historically Sunni domain and must remain so. Should be interesting when Saudi starts helping their sunni brothers and Iran their shi'a. I guarantee a civil war and maybe much larger with regional skirmishes too..

Will Obama be sucked back into the unwinable war?

Analysis: Iraq combat end a huge gamble

By STEVEN R. HURST (AP) – 7 hours ago

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama hailed the coming end of the U.S. combat mission in Iraq, but the gamble is huge — a wager that the country won't fall back into murderous anarchy.

And as he spoke of the need to be "humbled by the profound sacrifice" of American men and women who fought the war, Obama left out or glossed over some politically uncomfortable key facts.

That may reflect Obama's sinking poll numbers — driven by a stubborn 9.5 percent unemployment rate, an anemic economic recovery and broad anti-incumbent sentiment — with just three months remaining to congressional elections.

There is a good chance Obama's Democrats could surrender their big majority in the House and several seats in the Senate. They could even lose control of both chambers.

The president was walking a difficult line in his speech Monday to the Disabled American Veterans. His ambiguous record on the war before taking office and the fact that an end-of-2011 total withdrawal deadline was already in place were sure to have diluted his message.

As an opponent to what he, in 2002, called "a dumb war, a rash war," Obama also strenuously challenged the Bush administration's so-called troop surge in 2007, which is broadly credited with pulling Iraq back from the brink of civil war.

Obama said the combat mission will end by Aug. 31 "as promised and on schedule." According to the U.S.-Iraqi "Status of Forces Agreement" that took effect before his inauguration in January 2009, all American forces were mandated to leave by the end of 2011.

Obama separately pledged to pull out combat forces 16 months before the final withdrawal.

And as Obama spoke glowingly of the end of combat, the president wisely issued a caveat — Iraqi reality.

The 50,000 U.S. troops who remain 16 more months as trainers, security forces and counterterrorism squads still face a grave mission.

"These are dangerous tasks," Obama said. "And there are still those with bombs and bullets who will try to stop Iraq's progress. The hard truth is we have not seen the end of American sacrifice in Iraq."

Nor is there an end to tragedy for Iraqi citizens, who still are dying in terrorist shootings and bombings at a rate that belies any claim to even near normalcy seven years after former President George W. Bush ordered the invasion.

Iraq's political system remains wobbly. Nearly five months after inconclusive March 7 elections, politicians still are struggling to form a new government. The bitter political tug-of-war and ensuing power struggle have heightened worries about concerted insurgent attacks.

Al-Qaida in Iraq shows signs of returning to a strength that threatens the advances made during the American troop buildup in 2007.

Oil production — the basis of the Iraqi economy — still has not returned to prewar levels, and those were down significantly as a result of U.N. sanctions imposed after the first Gulf War.

About 1.8 million Iraqis remain abroad, a majority having fled to Syria and Jordan to avoid the ravages of war. Before the U.S. invasion, only an estimated half-million Iraqis lived abroad.

Billions of dollars have been spent to fix Iraq's antiquated electricity grid since the 2003 invasion, but many Iraqis still get power less than six hours a day — about the same or sometimes even less than they received under Saddam Hussein.

At least 4,413 members of the U.S. military have died since the invasion and nearly 32,000 have been wounded.

Given those difficult numbers, Obama sought a patriotic space for his opposition to the war, fully aware of the heavy price paid by the veterans in his audience.

"There are patriots who supported going to war, and patriots who opposed it," the president said. "But there has never been any daylight between us when it comes to supporting the more than 1 million Americans in uniform who have served in Iraq — far more than any conflict since Vietnam."

Hanging over the Aug. 31 milestone in Iraq, of course, remains the difficult — some say losing — war in Afghanistan, where, Obama reminded his listeners, "al-Qaida plotted and trained to murder 3,000 innocent people on 9/11."

Glad to be rid, or nearly so, of the resource- and life-draining fight in Iraq, the president sought plenty of attention for what he hopes will mark the real beginning of the end of a fight he believes should never have been fought — a war that produced searing divisions among Americans.

His job now, if Iraq doesn't fall apart again, will be to hold together faltering Democratic support for the increasingly bloody Afghanistan conflict.

In one of the more partisan periods in recent U.S. political history, Democrat Obama finds himself relying overwhelmingly on Republicans for support in Afghanistan.

EDITOR'S NOTE _ Steven R. Hurst, an international political writer for The Associated Press, was Baghdad bureau chief from 2005-08.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,904
6,787
126
That 500 to 600 a month should level off as the total population approaches that number.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Motherfuckers want to slaughter themselves they'll find ways to do it.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
This Iraq War has to be one of the biggest waste of money, lives,resources and time in the history of our country and we'll be paying for it for generations.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
This Iraq War has to be one of the biggest waste of money, lives,resources and time in the history of our country and we'll be paying for it for generations.

“The invasion of Iraq I believe will turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history,” General Odom
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
“The invasion of Iraq I believe will turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history,” General Odom

Noo he just wasn't a patriot!

..." where eagles soar... and freedom fries ador..."
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
What that place needs is someone like that once powerful dictator... Saddam Hussein. These people need to be ruled with an iron fist and live in fear of the secret police... apparently they cannot behave on their own.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,904
6,787
126
What that place needs is someone like that once powerful dictator... Saddam Hussein. These people need to be ruled with an iron fist and live in fear of the secret police... apparently they cannot behave on their own.

Did it ever occur to you that Iraq today is the result of just such rule. Folk who have been poisoned don't need more poison.
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
What that place needs is someone like that once powerful dictator... Saddam Hussein. These people need to be ruled with an iron fist and live in fear of the secret police... apparently they cannot behave on their own.
President Bush didn't understand the full implications of "They hate us for our Freedom".
He gave them Freedom, now they hate themselves...
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
awww. none of the guys who bought that shit hook line and sinker want to come defend it? Never fear you are immortalized in the archives.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Iraq kinda reminds of the fellow who kept beating himself over the head with a hammer because it felt so good when he stopped.

Sadly out of all the post WW1 British map room brainfarts, Iraq is and remains a country that never should have been. Cobbled out of the last left over bits of the former Ottoman empire, only the inspired delusional could have thought that sticking together Kurds, Shia, and Sunnis who hated each other guts could ever work.

It was bound to explode one day, and thanks to the genius of GWB, it exploded on his watch.

Worse yet, no country could ever be built more upside down. If the Sunnis and the Kurds were located in Southern Iraq, we might spin them off to Saudi Arabia, but no, the Shia's dominate Southern Iraq. As for the Kurds in the North of Iraq, they drive Turkey back shit bonkers as they are driven into close proximity.

Are quagmires cheaper by the dozen?
 
Feb 19, 2001
20,155
23
81
So you're questioning the surge that occurred so many months ago and saying that today's problems are due to the surge failing. But then you backtrack and say it's because Bush shouldn't have invaded. Fair enough. But how do you know it's the surge that failed that's causing today's violence. We all saw the violence charts sharply drop off post-surge.

So why not blame this current violence on Barack Obama's withdrawl plan? Everyone applauded him when he said troops would be out by August and that only a few advisers would remain. 50,000 worth of advisers? So maybe it is because we have too few troops out there that there's so much violence now. But how can you pin it on the surge so certainly? I mean honestly, your title is misleading. It's one thing to criticize the Iraq war, but I could say Iraqi summer temperatures results in increased violence. I mean honestly you're throwing random facts and drawing random conclusions.

Al-Qaida in Iraq shows signs of returning to a strength that threatens the advances made during the American troop buildup in 2007.
Your own bolded crap addresses this perfectly. It acknowledges advances were made during the troop buildup. Your own article acknowledges a drawdown of troop numbers. So it acknowledges that violence has gone up with fewer troops and violence has gone down with more troops. So how does that mean the surge fails? A surge reduces violence. This only means a PULLOUT FAILS.
 
Last edited:

IamDavid

Diamond Member
Sep 13, 2000
5,888
10
81
Just like with Vietnam, most thin skinned, weak minded people can't see the importance of what we did and have sacrificed... We allowed China to win in Vietnam and looked what happened. They've grown larger and larger and within my children's lifetime will OWN America.... Thank you hippies and freeloaders.....

Go live in France you weak $&*%!
 
Feb 19, 2001
20,155
23
81
BTW, I question your source. It's clear antiwar propaganda looking at the URL. Here, let's take everyone's favorite news site, CNN. Currently more centrist than Fox or MSNBC.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/02/obama.iraq.drawdown/index.html

The U.S. command in Baghdad, Iraq, "refutes that 535 people were killed in Iraq during the month of July," the military said in a statement Sunday. It put the total number of people killed by "enemy action" at 222, including 161 civilians, 55 Iraqi troops and six Americans -- the ninth-lowest civilian casualty count since January 2008, according to the U.S. military.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
So you're questioning the surge that occurred so many months ago and saying that today's problems are due to the surge failing. But then you backtrack and say it's because Bush shouldn't have invaded. Fair enough. But how do you know it's the surge that failed that's causing today's violence. We all saw the violence charts sharply drop off post-surge.

So why not blame this current violence on Barack Obama's withdrawl plan? Everyone applauded him when he said troops would be out by August and that only a few advisers would remain. 50,000 worth of advisers? So maybe it is because we have too few troops out there that there's so much violence now. But how can you pin it on the surge so certainly? I mean honestly, your title is misleading. It's one thing to criticize the Iraq war, but I could say Iraqi summer temperatures results in increased violence. I mean honestly you're throwing random facts and drawing random conclusions.

Your own bolded crap addresses this perfectly. It acknowledges advances were made during the troop buildup. Your own article acknowledges a drawdown of troop numbers. So it acknowledges that violence has gone up with fewer troops and violence has gone down with more troops. So how does that mean the surge fails? A surge reduces violence. This only means a PULLOUT FAILS.

Surge means not permanent by definition. It meant if we bribe people not to attack us, have some more troops for security, and continue rebuilding Sunni, who were our problem, would see the light, and would reconcile with Shi'a, vote and accept democracy. This was a fail since none of those happened. Surge was a piss poor temporary fix not a solution is what I mean by failed. It's akin to holding a picture on the wall and saying you hung the picture.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
BTW, I question your source. It's clear antiwar propaganda looking at the URL. Here, let's take everyone's favorite news site, CNN. Currently more centrist than Fox or MSNBC.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/02/obama.iraq.drawdown/index.html

LOL @ quoting US figures. Of course US command will refute it they lie all the time. vs. independent sites. Every site, not just antiwar says - death toll for July was almost twice that of June and the highest since 2008.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/08/01/July-deadly-month-for-Iraqi-citizens/UPI-99561280664494/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704702304575402591297497742.html

The civilian death toll for July was almost twice that of June and the highest since 2008.
 
Last edited:

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
Just like with Vietnam, most thin skinned, weak minded people can't see the importance of what we did and have sacrificed... We allowed China to win in Vietnam and looked what happened. They've grown larger and larger and within my children's lifetime will OWN America.... Thank you hippies and freeloaders.....

Go live in France you weak $&*%!

oh god revisionist history for the loss. Let me guess you are a fiscal conservative? laff.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Just like with Vietnam, most thin skinned, weak minded people can't see the importance of what we did and have sacrificed... We allowed China to win in Vietnam and looked what happened. They've grown larger and larger and within my children's lifetime will OWN America.... Thank you hippies and freeloaders.....

Go live in France you weak $&*%!
What did we do? Trillions spent, thousands dead, oil not even half prewar levels, Iraq and Islamic world more radical...where is the good important parts?

And yeah USA is going down the tubes. Because we spend resources on munitions instead of production. We get into debt on throw away items instead of productive assets.

China is more than happy to watch us bury ourselves in perpetual war and debt while they move along making things, making friends and making deals peacefully.

As far as being weak. No I'm into seek and destroy our enemies not rebuilding. Only a ignorant leftest kook full of multiculturalism chanting bullshit like "moms and Dads just like us" "hearts and minds" and "bringing democracy" thinks he can change an Islamic country into some Jeffersonian democracy and wastes trillions doing it. No sorry get the Kiplingesque “white-man’s burden” out of your head - they are nothing like us want nothing to do with us and our systems. They like theirs just fine.

But really Bush is not that stupid. Only you and his supplicants are. He drags you along as long as possible in purposeful fail while making billions for his connected friends and donors.
 
Last edited:

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
You cant reason with Iamretard He thinks china is powerful because Vietnam has even cheaper labor. lmao.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
So you're questioning the surge that occurred so many months ago and saying that today's problems are due to the surge failing. But then you backtrack and say it's because Bush shouldn't have invaded. Fair enough. But how do you know it's the surge that failed that's causing today's violence. We all saw the violence charts sharply drop off post-surge.

So why not blame this current violence on Barack Obama's withdrawl plan? Everyone applauded him when he said troops would be out by August and that only a few advisers would remain. 50,000 worth of advisers? So maybe it is because we have too few troops out there that there's so much violence now. But how can you pin it on the surge so certainly? I mean honestly, your title is misleading. It's one thing to criticize the Iraq war, but I could say Iraqi summer temperatures results in increased violence. I mean honestly you're throwing random facts and drawing random conclusions.

Your own bolded crap addresses this perfectly. It acknowledges advances were made during the troop buildup. Your own article acknowledges a drawdown of troop numbers. So it acknowledges that violence has gone up with fewer troops and violence has gone down with more troops. So how does that mean the surge fails? A surge reduces violence. This only means a PULLOUT FAILS.
You're arguing with a bunch of people who insisted the Surge failed even after it was clear that it didn't. If you want a reasonable, level-headed, non-biased viewpoint of Iraq, don't expect it here. If you keep arguing you'll eventually be villified as a morally bankrupt, Bush-loving, chickenhawk, neocon because anyone who doesn't see things their way has to be a morally bankrupt, Bush-loving, chickenhawk, neocon. That's about the level of discourse you can expect from the Iraq war opponents in P&N.
 

Capt Caveman

Lifer
Jan 30, 2005
34,543
651
126
Knowing a former Iraqi soldier who started his own restaurant here with his brothers, who flies back and forth from the US to Iraq, he tells me that Iraq is much better now than even a year ago and improves daily.

On a side note, he's famous in the area for his Israeli falafels.
 
Last edited:

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Knowing a former Iraqi soldier who started his own restaurant here with his brothers, who flies back and forth from the US to Iraq, he tells me that Iraq is much better now than even a year ago and improves daily.

On a side note, he's famous in the area for his Israeli falafels.

Math don't lie. Deaths are increasing. Not unexpected.... People do not understand in Islam there can only be victors and politically vanquished. There is no compromise. In Saudi Shia are second class, In Iran Sunni are. And Iraq still has yet to be decided. Our troops are preventing that outcome and stuff will explode to the degree they are pulled from theater..