Is it too soon to call the "surge" a failure?

[CADsortaGUY]

Is it too soon to call the "surge" a failure?

"I think the 'surge' is working,"

This post is for the handful of you who have a problem with reading. Sheesh.

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: techs
The purpose of the surge was to reduce the violence so that the various factions in Iraq would give up trying to get a better deal on the issues that are part of the "benchmarks', the most well known of which is an agreement on oil money distribution.
Yet, despite a slight downturn in violence, NOT ONE OF THE BENCHMARKS has been reached, and no side is ready to compromise.
There is no evidence the surge is changing any sides positions, and the stalemate continues.
With US troops soon to be reduced from the surge levels, what hope is there that the sides will now compromise?
Not much.

This post is for people who don't bother to read anything besides titles.

 

[Jaskalas]

There is plenty of hope that as our levels diminish that the Iraqi army steps up to the plate, having given them another year or two with this surge.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: techs
The purpose of the surge was to reduce the violence so that the various factions in Iraq would give up trying to get a better deal on the issues that are part of the "benchmarks', the most well known of which is an agreement on oil money distribution.
Yet, despite a slight downturn in violence, NOT ONE OF THE BENCHMARKS has been reached, and no side is ready to compromise.
There is no evidence the surge is changing any sides positions, and the stalemate continues.
With US troops soon to be reduced from the surge levels, what hope is there that the sides will now compromise?
Not much.

This post is for people who don't bother to read anything besides titles.

Your point? Oh wait- it's nothing but nuanced BS.

Now back to my post. The OP asked a question in the title. I posted a link to the answer from murtha. You can try to make the claim that they said the same thing but the OP did not say - nor imply that "the 'surge' is working".

...nuance and spin away...

 

[blackllotus]

It's great that the surge is working but iirc the violence is still at 2004 or 2005 levels. I didn't support the war then so I don't see why the success of the surge should suddenly change my opinion.

 

[ntdz]

Call the surge a failure? Are you out of your mind? We've got anti-war Democrats admitting the surge is working (Murtha anyone?). Violence has been reduced by more than half and we have both sunni and shiite factions cooperating with American and Iraqi forces...how can you POSSIBLY qualify this as a failure?

 

[maluckey]

The surge was nothing more than a straw to break the camels back. Provided said camel doesn't heal particularly quickly, it will continue to do the intended job and give Iraqis time to heal.

We see the results of the surge as demoralizing anti-whoever/whatever efforts to the point where locals are taking initiative to form community watch programs and use telephone hotlines against the violence. You see, once the violence abated to the point where you could no longer throw a rock into the air and hit someone guilty, it made it easier for the cops and communities to police up the truly bad guys. This, in turn made the semi-bad guys think twice, and kept the honest people honest.

So...it's working, but not necessarily for any reasons that you'd think or even plan for. The CF are not actively doing it so much as for the show of force and morale support affects the public opinion, which in turn changes mindset.

As an example of change and recent success..the Haaj flights from Iraq are on schedule, and from multiple cities this year. Despite the naysayers, this is prime example that security has improved when civilians can fly internationall from multiple airports without a hitch.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
The OP simply made me chuckle...

Conditions in Iraq are improving. period.

Does that bother some of you?

Yeah, it does bother me...

Can we leave and start improving the conditions in our OWN country? Maybe spend some billions on ourselves?

It bothers me greatly that we still remain spending zillions for what? Oh yeah... OIL!

Money ... Greed with religion on the side......


I'll pass....

Thanks, But..... no thanks!

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: EXman
Funny how you say it isn't working even with one of the most outspoken critics of the war just came back from Iraq and said

"I think the surge is working, but that's only one element," said Murtha, who chairs the defense appropriations subcommittee. "And the surge is working for a couple of different reasons. And one reason is the increase in troops."

It is right there an Uber Libby declaring it is working!

Why do you Libbys want us to lose? You seem to have a vested interest in it? We were losing... Turned out to be a bitch and now that even Iraqi's are tired of getting bombed by Al Qiada and helping themselves by either turning them in or killing the terrorists butts themselves. That is another reason why violence has fallen sharply. Al Q's never should have bombed other muslims. Looks to be a fatal error. Sorry bad pun.

See above. This idea that murtha contradicts the OP is WRONG. Go away now.

I love Libbies just try and make someone look stupid and schoo them away w/o even a shred of thought in thier posts. Huh? are you reading english? to quote OP

There is no evidence the surge is changing any sides positions, and the stalemate continues.

Hell look at the Title? That is a just not a true statement and I don't know why you refuse to here good news out of Iraq?

Murtha contradicts that "I think the surge is working" does that register yet?

"I think the surge is working""I think the surge is working""I think the surge is working""I think the surge is working""I think the surge is working""I think the surge is working""I think the surge is working""I think the surge is working""I think the surge is working" -- Jack Murtha D Pen

Is that registering now?

My Army captian Cousin on the ground at a forward operating base states they are not getting shelled nearly as much. A noticable, measured, a welcome difference.

Violent attack rates are down. Kills Down. Casualties down.

"I think the surge is working" Is that registering now?

It is to Jack Murtha in some degree.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Is it too soon to call the "surge" a failure?

"I think the 'surge' is working,"

This post is for the handful of you who have a problem with reading. Sheesh.

:thumbsup: :laugh:

 

[Lemon law]

The problem with thinking that the surge is working comes when we desurge and start reducing troops numbers. Which is coming very soon.

Unless there is some real political and economic progress in Iraq, the now somewhat dormant Iraqi insurgencies have the potential to erupt at any time and for thousands of different reasons.

Sadly and ironically, one of those reasons may be a central Iraqi government starting to take hold thereby becoming a threat to those same insurgencies.

The other danger is that as ethnic cleansing starts to reduce as a factor motivating the various insurgencies, that new motives and mischief will be found to keep them going as viable forces. With corruption and turf wars being two likely emerging tactics. Still leaving the US troops as the hated spoilsports.

As Shinseki originally predicted, its going to take 500,000 troops to maintain an occupation militarily.

Now if we want to start talking about making the political and economic progress needed to win the peace in Iraq, then the surge is at best a busted play from how it was initially billed.

But point taken, its nice to see an overall reduction in violence. But until economic and political progress happens, its unlikely to last. And that economic and political progress for Iraq is also unlikely to happen while GWB is still President and is unwilling to engage in the other diplomacy needed to build consensuses abroad and at home.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I still think we owe Iraq a win. It's the only way we can ever salvage anything from the total disaster. I do not know, however, if we can win. But I think this reality, this real need for a win will keep us there through Democrat or Republican.

Reading Moonie argue in favor of endless war is like finding out as a child that there is no Santa Claus.

I am not arguing in favor of an endless war. I said 3 things. The first is that we owe Iraq a win. That means we screwed them over by starting an unnecessary war and we have a moral obligation to fix that as much as we can. The consequences of failure there, however, will have political repercussions very unfavorable to the rest of the Middle East. Second, I said I don't know if we can fix it because it may not be possible for us to return Iraq to a peace. Third, regardless of whether we can fix Iraq or not, and long after I would perhaps have quit, I think the negative consequences of failure will keep us drinking at that tough. We could and would leave tomorrow, I think, if victory or defeat didn't matter. My opinion will not matter, but politicians have their ego's and careers at stake in this and they won't give up, in my opinion.

I am not in favor of anything. I think the cosmos, as it were, is lined up for us to stay.

And where did you get the idea there is no Santa Clause? That's just rubbish.

Which you (and many others in this thread) didn't believe before the "surge" started. Hence, the POLITICAL purpose of the "surge," which was to keep us in Iraq, has been an overwhelming success.
Feel free to search back to my posts earlier this year when I predicted that this was what would happen. Back then, the whole idea of "staying the course" would have completely unacceptable to you. And now the cosmos is aligned.

I am thoroughly disgusted.

 

[Red Dawn]

It doesn't seem the political portion of it is working

 

[Vic]

Might want to fix your link, Red?

Anyway, a year ago the Dems won the mid-terms by promising to get us out of Iraq. Now, even the most staunchly anti-war Dem congressmen, like Brian Baird and David Wu, have come full-circle in favor of the war. Even Moonbeam is now stay the course. You tell me what happened...

 

[db]

If a bunch of cops stand around for a few weeks, crime will drop in that same area. Same with the "surge". When the soldiers leave their area, it will go back to the way it was before. No surprise.
As stated above, the surge was to buy time. Meanwhile, our men and women in uniform continue to die for....no reason. Bush lied; knew he was lying when he said it, and still wants to stay there even after he admits that there are no WMD. WTF did Iraq have to do with 9/11? Nothing.

Bush doesn't give a f**k about you, the mercantile class. He doesn't care if you, your brother or your uncle dies. He is in Iraq to extend the reach of American control in the Middle East and keep the money flowing now and in the future for the elite few. You are simply the piece of flesh that bleeds for him.

 

[Stoneburner]

I see most people are still referring to the title and ignoring the OP. This is because they are dishonest, can't read, or both.

So if Iraq is settled to the point where we have to keep 120k plus troops in the country for 50 years, we consider the surge a success? Get a goddamn clue, you retards have been wrong about this mess from day one.

 

[Obsoleet]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
I see most people are still referring to the title and ignoring the OP. This is because they are dishonest, can't read, or both.

So if Iraq is settled to the point where we have to keep 120k plus troops in the country for 50 years, we consider the surge a success? Get a goddamn clue, you retards have been wrong about this mess from day one.

No one has a good answer for this mess. Quit pretending a group of leftists do, because they don't.

There is no good answers when people die, oil prices skyrocket when we're supposed to be taking oil, and the mideast (an extremely volatile region already) has lost all balance and verges on powderkegging the whole thing into a far larger war no matter if we stay or leave.

THAT, is reality.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Vic
Might want to fix your link, Red?

Anyway, a year ago the Dems won the mid-terms by promising to get us out of Iraq. Now, even the most staunchly anti-war Dem congressmen, like Brian Baird and David Wu, have come full-circle in favor of the war. Even Moonbeam is now stay the course. You tell me what happened...

This is what happened:

const TALKINGPOINTS[] = {"Unpatriotic", "Defeatists", "Traitors", ..., "Against the Troops"};
init Plans[] = {"Invade", "Stay the Course", "Stay the Course", "Iraq Study Group", "Iran", ..., "Surge", ..., "?"};
init PlanCount = -1;
init Success = 0;

Function Iraq() {
While(!Success) {
PlanCount++;
Call FUD("Democrats", TALKINGPOINTS[rand()%SizeOf(TALKINGPOINTS)]);
Call Strategery(Plans[PlanCount]);
}
}

Function FUD(init Party, init TalkingPoint) {
Print Party +" are " + TalkingPoint;
}

Function Strategery(init CurrentPlan) {
If(Sunni+Shiite+Kurd=Iraq) {
Success = 1;
}
}

What happens when Bush gets an Array Reference Out of Bounds runtime error?

 

[Lemon law]

Obsoleet makes half of a good point in saying-----------No one has a good answer for this mess. Quit pretending a group of leftists do, because they don't.

The point is that GWB&co and right winger don't have a good answer either. And in fact have a terrible answer that has been directly responsible for turning Iraq into the intractable mess it is now.

Which is precisely why we should not let GWB be the sole decider. Why are we trusting the clueless idiot who broke it to fix it? That alone defies common sense.

What we have to do now, it seems to me, is to put all options on the table, and seek a bipartisan plan we can all commit to. A Plan that will lessen the probability that Iraqi will continue to spiral out of control, and result in far more dangerous mid-east war.

 

[Obsoleet]

I tend to default with any plan that brings the troops home.

But yeah, nothing is attractive when you kill people, kill your own people, gain nothing (not a drop of oil apparantly with today's prices), and continue to break an already bankrupt nation like the USA.

And no, I don't trust GWB to fix anything. He needs to be removed from office immediately. He is the #1 reason this nation has and will fail.

Thankfully we stopped his amnesty bill at least. But he's pretty much already succeeded in his goal to fatten his buddies up, and break down the USA so he can have more control over it.

Face it, 9/11 gave him more control. With the USA bankrupt, a North American Union sounds more plausible.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
What we have to do now, it seems to me, is to put all options on the table, and seek a bipartisan plan we can all commit to. A Plan that will lessen the probability that Iraqi will continue to spiral out of control, and result in far more dangerous mid-east war.

And where is this 'plan' you speak of? The only 'plan' we ever get from the defeatists is a cut and run one. How about a 'plan' for victory?

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Lemon law
What we have to do now, it seems to me, is to put all options on the table, and seek a bipartisan plan we can all commit to. A Plan that will lessen the probability that Iraqi will continue to spiral out of control, and result in far more dangerous mid-east war.

And where is this 'plan' you speak of? The only 'plan' we ever get from the defeatists is a cut and run one. How about a 'plan' for victory?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A good part of the reason for no discussion of such a plan lies in GWB&co. Who refuse to talk with a democratic or even a Republican congress. The notion that the only plan the democrats offer is total withdrawal is a myth. Unlike the GOP, democrats are far more divided about what options to use in Iraq. And with Republican's in the legislative branch refusing to talk compromise with democrats and instead opting for total unified support of GWB, any such discussions are still DOA.

But as the election nears, the GOP in congress are going to have to decide to run with GWB
or away from him. For any that still have any remaining faith in GWB&co, any big increase in Iraqi insurgent violence will probably doom the GWB administration's last remaining hold on the GOP. And so will any large setback in political progress in Iraq.

I expect a wide variety of plans will be laid out as campaign platforms of most major candidates. And be offered up to the American people as election issues.

And for that matter, the strings attached funding offered to and rejected by the GOP was not a cut and run by any means, but rather a very slow phased reduction of troop numbers.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Lemon law
What we have to do now, it seems to me, is to put all options on the table, and seek a bipartisan plan we can all commit to. A Plan that will lessen the probability that Iraqi will continue to spiral out of control, and result in far more dangerous mid-east war.

And where is this 'plan' you speak of? The only 'plan' we ever get from the defeatists is a cut and run one. How about a 'plan' for victory?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A good part of the reason for no discussion of such a plan lies in GWB&co. Who refuse to talk with a democratic or even a Republican congress. The notion that the only plan the democrats offer is total withdrawal is a myth. Unlike the GOP, democrats are far more divided about what options to use in Iraq. And with Republican's in the legislative branch refusing to talk compromise with democrats and instead opting for total unified support of GWB, any such discussions are still DOA.

But as the election nears, the GOP in congress are going to have to decide to run with GWB
or away from him. For any that still have any remaining faith in GWB&co, any big increase in Iraqi insurgent violence will probably doom the GWB administration's last remaining hold on the GOP. And so will any large setback in political progress in Iraq.

I expect a wide variety of plans will be laid out as campaign platforms of most major candidates. And be offered up to the American people as election issues.

And for that matter, the strings attached funding offered to and rejected by the GOP was not a cut and run by any means, but rather a very slow phased reduction of troop numbers.

So which plan(s) did the dems offer that did not end in the removal troops and also included staying long enough to make sure iraq government had enough time to stabilize?

All of the dem plans so far have involved hamstringing military operations, removing funding and cutting and running.

 

[Lemon law]

As Charrison says----All of the dem plans so far have involved hamstringing military operations, removing funding and cutting and running.

Maybe in your mind, but not in mine. Many of these discussions remain as private conversation between Republican and Democratic Senators and congressmen. Until a consensus is reached both parties can commit to, these discussions remain as possible compromises that not bear fruit yet.

But Charrison, in case you missed other threads on this exact subject, the democrats are now united enough to say this partisan crapola by the GOP must stop. The fact is, the GOP has insufficient numbers and can't pass the no strings Iraqi funding GWB wants. The Democrats have insufficient numbers to force the President to accept funding with Iraqi funding over a GOP filibuster, and if neither side backs down, there may be no funding at all. And then whose fault is that? The Democrats who provided funding or the Republicans who said our way or the highway?

Some sort of compromise may well be required. Rather than have this thread dissolve into a partisan wishful thinking on who will or lose in a showdown, I do think this search for compromises will be the trend of the future for the remaining time left in the GWB administration. Three or four such spending supplemental bills still remain after this one.

Since even the most optimistic GWB supporters don't think any Iraqi progress will bear withdrawal fruit before GWB leaves office 1/20/2009, a Future President and Congress must continue to wrestle with Iraqi issues without the benefits of GW&co's rather dubious wisdoms. And we the American people will have our inputs on whom we select to lead in the election of 11/4/2008.

And we can all bet our bottom dollar that the current and future state of what might be called the surge will have a huge impact on American public thinking come election day.
Whatever emotion involvement chest thumping keyboard comado bleating we do on this thread, the actual events in Iraq will be unaffected. And we can learn about future events in the news like everyone else.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
As Charrison says----All of the dem plans so far have involved hamstringing military operations, removing funding and cutting and running.

Maybe in your mind, but not in mine. Many of these discussions remain as private conversation between Republican and Democratic Senators and congressmen. Until a consensus is reached both parties can commit to, these discussions remain as possible compromises that not bear fruit yet.

But Charrison, in case you missed other threads on this exact subject, the democrats are now united enough to say this partisan crapola by the GOP must stop. The fact is, the GOP has insufficient numbers and can't pass the no strings Iraqi funding GWB wants. The Democrats have insufficient numbers to force the President to accept funding with Iraqi funding over a GOP filibuster, and if neither side backs down, there may be no funding at all. And then whose fault is that? The Democrats who provided funding or the Republicans who said our way or the highway?

Some sort of compromise may well be required. Rather than have this thread dissolve into a partisan wishful thinking on who will or lose in a showdown, I do think this search for compromises will be the trend of the future for the remaining time left in the GWB administration. Three or four such spending supplemental bills still remain after this one.

Since even the most optimistic GWB supporters don't think any Iraqi progress will bear withdrawal fruit before GWB leaves office 1/20/2009, a Future President and Congress must continue to wrestle with Iraqi issues without the benefits of GW&co's rather dubious wisdoms. And we the American people will have our inputs on whom we select to lead in the election of 11/4/2008.

And we can all bet our bottom dollar that the current and future state of what might be called the surge will have a huge impact on American public thinking come election day.
Whatever emotion involvement chest thumping keyboard comado bleating we do on this thread, the actual events in Iraq will be unaffected. And we can learn about future events in the news like everyone else.

Looks like the dems are about to ready to fold again. This makes 0 of 43...