Perhaps the Surge is Working

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Nice link, too bad your source has ZERO credibility.
link
I vouched for Kimberly Kagan's academic credentials in linking to her assessment of the progress of the "surge" for the Weekly Standard. I should have disclosed that Kagan is the wife of Frederick Kagan, the principal author of the surge; and his brother is Bob Kagan, another pro-surge advocate and editor at the Weekly Standard, and they're both sons of Donald Kagan, who is also a neoconservative intellectual. More to the point: Kimberly Kagan is listed as one of the participants in her husband's research team that came up with the surge in the first place. So when the Weekly Standard decided to compile a regular report on the surge's progress, they picked the wife of the main author and one of the plan's original architects. And they never disclosed these relevant facts. So allow me.

Your post is a deflection...all your post establishes is that Kagan's assessment has a bias given her relationship to the surge as a strategy...but it is logical to expect that she would support the very strategy she perhaps helped to define.

You are attacking the source, but have yet to comment on the premise of the OP...which does not establish any credibility for your position, as you have yet to define one.

So you present an article written by an extremely biased person and then want to talk about it "without politics invloved" :laugh: OK

The surge isn't going to do anything unless we have the political will to stay long term. I don't think we do so lets get the hell out ASAP.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Perhaps you recall that US involvement in WWII lasted only 4 years. Not 20 or 30. I think if we were still fighting in Normandy in 1950 there would be some expressions of concern among US citizens. But not you of course.

And I am fully prepared to support a US administrations continual war on extremism. But it cannot be won with 100,000 troops in one country. We need the help of other countries and a reasonable plan that doesn't alienate the billion other muslims in the world. Iraq may have been a good idea if it worked. It didn't. Time to try something else, because direct confrontation featuring 30 years of urban guerilla warfare doesn't make us safer.

Misleading.

Are there still U.S. military bases in Germany, due to the war in in 40s? Yes/no.

Are there still U.S. military bases in Japan, due to the war in the 40s? Yes/no.

I don't necessarily disagree that Iraq should be considered a failure, but any attempt at national reform in the world is not going to be a 4 year campaign. Try 40.

Your the one doing the misleading. They surrendered and quit fighting us, we were occupying them and they new it and accepted it. We even had the moral hiogh ground. None of that is the case in Iraq.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Around 400-600 thousand troops are needed to secure the area.

Nobody besides GW and his merry band of idiots who'll supprt him no matter what believes that the surge is doing anything more than irritating the local populace.

There is no hope for the region, i hope the US stays forever, at least then the UN don't have to go in to keep peace in US's mess AGAIN.

The US is like a kid who runs wild and the UN is expected to go in and clean up the mess afterwards and every goddamn time it's consistent whining from the US about how worthless the UN is, this is your mess, clean it the fuck up yourselves for once.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Around 400-600 thousand troops are needed to secure the area.

Nobody besides GW and his merry band of idiots who'll supprt him no matter what believes that the surge is doing anything more than irritating the local populace.

There is no hope for the region, i hope the US stays forever, at least then the UN don't have to go in to keep peace in US's mess AGAIN.

The US is like a kid who runs wild and the UN is expected to go in and clean up the mess afterwards and every goddamn time it's consistent whining from the US about how worthless the UN is, this is your mess, clean it the fuck up yourselves for once.

We get it... you hate the US... you love the EU. We get it already.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Around 400-600 thousand troops are needed to secure the area.

Nobody besides GW and his merry band of idiots who'll supprt him no matter what believes that the surge is doing anything more than irritating the local populace.

There is no hope for the region, i hope the US stays forever, at least then the UN don't have to go in to keep peace in US's mess AGAIN.

The US is like a kid who runs wild and the UN is expected to go in and clean up the mess afterwards and every goddamn time it's consistent whining from the US about how worthless the UN is, this is your mess, clean it the fuck up yourselves for once.

We get it... you hate the US... you love the EU. We get it already.

I don't hate the US, it's that daft thought that if you are against something that is American then you are against the entire US.

I love the US, i dislike those like you no matter where you come from, the self entitled idiots who keep insisting on that you are never ever wrong even though you are continually proven wrong.

Get it now or do i have to write it again?

 

[Starbuck1975]

So you present an article written by an extremely biased person and then want to talk about it "without politics invloved"

We all have bias...I wanted to discuss the surge independent of Bush's spin from a strictly strategic perspective...based entirely on the perspective of those actively involved in the surge, or in the case of the article I posted, those who envisioned the strategy.

You can talk about Iraq without evoking Bush if the focus remains on what we need to do NOW, ignoring the false pretenses that got us there.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

So you present an article written by an extremely biased person and then want to talk about it "without politics invloved"

We all have bias...I wanted to discuss the surge independent of Bush's spin from a strictly strategic perspective...based entirely on the perspective of those actively involved in the surge, or in the case of the article I posted, those who envisioned the strategy.

You can talk about Iraq without evoking Bush if the focus remains on what we need to do NOW, ignoring the false pretenses that got us there.

I personally think that in order to know where your going you need to know where your at and knowing how you got there helps, especially when your lost, which is kind of what we are in Iraq.

We either to to go in full force or get out as soon as we can safley manage it. We don't have the political will to keep trudging along as we have been and we don't have the political will to institute the draft to get the bodies we need to do the job right, so that only leaves one option.

Now for the political part, any leader with half a brain should have know that from the get-go.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

So you present an article written by an extremely biased person and then want to talk about it "without politics invloved"

We all have bias...I wanted to discuss the surge independent of Bush's spin from a strictly strategic perspective...based entirely on the perspective of those actively involved in the surge, or in the case of the article I posted, those who envisioned the strategy.

You can talk about Iraq without evoking Bush if the focus remains on what we need to do NOW, ignoring the false pretenses that got us there.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok Starbucks1975--lets take ALL politics out of it---even then the answer is clear and its been said on this thread--its gonna take 400-600 thousand disciplined troops to stabilize Iraq. To Patrol the streets 24/7 and break the power of the entrenched insurgencies. And once the insurgencies cease to be a force---then an Iraqi government can have a chance to take over.

Since the US military at best can only come up with 40% of that number---we now must go hat in hand to the international community along the lines of Baker- Hamilton to get those needed extra 300-400 thousand extra troops.

And Starbucks1975---if you are not willing to embrace that reality---you too are playing politics and wasting our time playing semantic games.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Ok Starbucks1975--lets take ALL politics out of it---even then the answer is clear and its been said on this thread--its gonna take 400-600 thousand disciplined troops to stabilize Iraq. To Patrol the streets 24/7 and break the power of the entrenched insurgencies. And once the insurgencies cease to be a force---then an Iraqi government can have a chance to take over.

Since the US military at best can only come up with 40% of that number---we now must go hat in hand to the international community along the lines of Baker- Hamilton to get those needed extra 300-400 thousand extra troops.

And Starbucks1975---if you are not willing to embrace that reality---you too are playing politics and wasting our time playing semantic games.

If you look back across the numerous Iraq threads since things started to go to hell in a hand basket, I have supported one strategy, and one strategy alone:

1. For America to approach the UN, admit its mistake for invading Iraq, and make a case for the wider threat now present should we depart Iraq prior to stabilizing the region. Pride and saving face at this point is cutting off our nose to spite our face.
2. Actively engage the Muslim world, perhaps attain military commitments from the neighboring countries, and place a Muslim face on the stabilization force...Egypt, Saudi Arabia and perhaps Turkey come to mind. Would also have to engage other global players like China, Russia and yes even Iran.
3. Never should have disbanded the Iraqi military machine, but hindsight is 20/20. Actively engage former Iraqi military commanders and tribal leaders to provide for a more robust Iraqi security presence...even in post WW2 Germany and Japan, we found competent military leaders who were once our adversaries but played a crucial role in reconstruction efforts.
4. Estalbish a time table that limits American military forces to logistics support and security of strategic points...remove American faces from patrols and other forms of presence so as to remove the perception of an occupation force.
5. Actively engage Pakistan and aggressively flush out the Al Quaida presence there.
6. Recognize all insurgency groups with the exception of Al Quaida. Bring the Baathists, Kurds, Shi'ites, Sunnis and tribal leaders to the negotiating table.
7. Use American military forces to primarily to secure Iraq's borders...with our technology and recon assets, stop the flow of arms from Iran, Syria and other neighboring countries that are feeding the foreign fighter and Al Quaida elements in Iraq.
8. Most importantly, recognize that we screwed up big time, and will have to make concessions accordingly that may contradict our short term strategic interests.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Nice link, too bad your source has ZERO credibility.
link
I vouched for Kimberly Kagan's academic credentials in linking to her assessment of the progress of the "surge" for the Weekly Standard. I should have disclosed that Kagan is the wife of Frederick Kagan, the principal author of the surge; and his brother is Bob Kagan, another pro-surge advocate and editor at the Weekly Standard, and they're both sons of Donald Kagan, who is also a neoconservative intellectual. More to the point: Kimberly Kagan is listed as one of the participants in her husband's research team that came up with the surge in the first place. So when the Weekly Standard decided to compile a regular report on the surge's progress, they picked the wife of the main author and one of the plan's original architects. And they never disclosed these relevant facts. So allow me.

Your post is a deflection...all your post establishes is that Kagan's assessment has a bias given her relationship to the surge as a strategy...but it is logical to expect that she would support the very strategy she perhaps helped to define.

You are attacking the source, but have yet to comment on the premise of the OP...which does not establish any credibility for your position, as you have yet to define one.

My post is a deflection? This entire thread is a deflection.
You posted the link to her article and said "Ms. Kagan based the editorial on her trip in May and subsequent analysis...given her position as an affiliate of Harvard's John M. Olin Institute of Strategic Studies, and as executive director of the Institute for the Study of War in Washington, I think she is qualified to offer such an opinion...
...unless of course such opinions are only valid if they provide a doom and gloom assessment. "
You conveniently left out the part about her being married to the main author of the surge.
Typical right-wing BS. Cherry picked facts delivered by paid shills.
Oh, and my position, in case you haven't guessed, is that Bush admin and the neocons never tell the truth, and can't be trusted to do anything right.

 

[Starbuck1975]

My post is a deflection? This entire thread is a deflection.

Yet another deflection...if the thread is a deflection, make a case for that assertion.

Oh, and my position, in case you haven't guessed, is that Bush admin and the neocons never tell the truth, and can't be trusted to do anything right.

Fair enough...but doesn't leave much room for discussion.

You conveniently left out the part about her being married to the main author of the surge. Typical right-wing BS. Cherry picked facts delivered by paid shills.

It's an editorial piece, which means it is open to debate. Cherry picking suggests the offering of selected facts and drawing conclusions from them. An editorial opinion is just that...an opinion...and if you read the entirety of the OP, I posted Kagan's article only because it mirrored emails I was receiving from my friends currently in Iraq...they were actually the ones who made me aware of the article...so I guess you can say that those serving in Iraq chose to "cherry pick" an article that reflects their experience on the ground.

You are still attacking the author, and have yet to offer a counter argument as to why you disagree with Kagan's assessment.

Oh, and "NeoCons lie" is not a counter argument.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Sinsear
I have no doubts that there is plenty of good stuff that happens and goes unreported over there for the most part; I saw some of it myself. The war has now become too unpopular, and despite the apparent workings of this surge it is too little too late for a lot of people.

:roll: :roll:

Troll

Camouflaged troll

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

My post is a deflection? This entire thread is a deflection.

Yet another deflection...if the thread is a deflection, make a case for that assertion.

Oh, and my position, in case you haven't guessed, is that Bush admin and the neocons never tell the truth, and can't be trusted to do anything right.

Fair enough...but doesn't leave much room for discussion.

You conveniently left out the part about her being married to the main author of the surge. Typical right-wing BS. Cherry picked facts delivered by paid shills.

It's an editorial piece, which means it is open to debate. Cherry picking suggests the offering of selected facts and drawing conclusions from them. An editorial opinion is just that...an opinion...and if you read the entirety of the OP, I posted Kagan's article only because it mirrored emails I was receiving from my friends currently in Iraq...they were actually the ones who made me aware of the article...so I guess you can say that those serving in Iraq chose to "cherry pick" an article that reflects their experience on the ground.

You are still attacking the author, and have yet to offer a counter argument as to why you disagree with Kagan's assessment.

Oh, and "NeoCons lie" is not a counter argument.

What I meant was this is how the right wing operates. You presented this person as a respected academic, when in fact they are a neocon. Typical of right wing politics, like the fake reporter in the white house pool of reporters, paid columnists to spout their line, etc, etc, etc...
These neocons have been wrong about everything, so why would I believe anything they have to say. I don't have an argument, except that neocons are always wrong.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

The level of ignorance, war-mongering and clueless optimism shown here on a daily basis is truly astounding. Hey, Joe Lieberman says we are winning. Amazing how a bunch of draft-dodging chicken hawks have brainwashed so many into thinking Iraq is a just cause that must be continued at all costs.

Did you even bother to read the thread?

The entire premise of the article I posted, and the subsequent discussion, is that if you examine the war in Iraq INDEPENDENT of the partisan and political spin surrounding it, you will find a conflict that is very much winnable...assuming that we institute a strategy for which the endstate is our withdrawal.

To say we should simply pull out regardless is premature and ignorant of the fact that in doing so, we are essentially setting the stage for a wider or more bloody conflict later...as other have pointed out, such a decsion would amount to dumping our mistake on the Iraqi people, if not the entire region.

However, we cannot continue to blindly follow the Bush strategy for Iraq.

Pulling out immediately is not an option...blindly moving forward is not an option either...hence the reserved optimism towards the surge, as it effectively solves both problems.

Well? Why should we accept two month old news as relevant today?

The OP editorial I posted is from today

Moving Forward in Iraq

For those who bothered to read the whole thing, Ms. Kagan based the editorial on her trip in May and subsequent analysis...given her position as an affiliate of Harvard's John M. Olin Institute of Strategic Studies, and as executive director of the Institute for the Study of War in Washington, I think she is qualified to offer such an opinion...

...unless of course such opinions are only valid if they provide a doom and gloom assessment.

Nice link, too bad your source has ZERO credibility.
link
I vouched for Kimberly Kagan's academic credentials in linking to her assessment of the progress of the "surge" for the Weekly Standard. I should have disclosed that Kagan is the wife of Frederick Kagan, the principal author of the surge; and his brother is Bob Kagan, another pro-surge advocate and editor at the Weekly Standard, and they're both sons of Donald Kagan, who is also a neoconservative intellectual. More to the point: Kimberly Kagan is listed as one of the participants in her husband's research team that came up with the surge in the first place. So when the Weekly Standard decided to compile a regular report on the surge's progress, they picked the wife of the main author and one of the plan's original architects. And they never disclosed these relevant facts. So allow me.

DID ANYBODY READ THAT? I've seen no response.

Too inconvenient to deal with that little truth methinks. The only surge we need is the one that surges our soldiers home to their families.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I love the US, i dislike those like you no matter where you come from, the self entitled idiots who keep insisting on that you are never ever wrong even though you are continually proven wrong.

I don't recall you ever admitting your ineptitude during the entire "FOB" debacle last week when half a dozen people tried to correct you... or do you stll believe that it stands for "Fuck Only Buddy"?!

lol..

hypocrite? what's that?

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Any "good news" or "noted progress" will fall on deaf ears; as the majority of posters here are defeatists.

Some of us know some truths, but it's nearly impossible to even get people to listen to those truths, let alone convince them of their validity. three years of worsening conditions have supposedly worn out their patience.

Such is life in a society that generally lacks the patience to wait more than two hours for any story to climax and conclude.

In terms of opportunity cost, only 1% of Americans have given up anything beyond the 99 cents spent on a magnetic ribbon for their cars...

Really? And if the majority of the Iraqi people want you out of their country, why don't you listen to them?

but they dont. The majority of those I interacted with over there were VERY happy that we're sticking around, and they were also VERY afraid of the day we leave.

it's about perspective, and i'm sorry, your Holiday-Inn-Express-perspective just doesnt compare to the reality on the ground.

Have you seen the specials filmed at Baghdad's University? The students there spoke out against the violence and practically BEGGED the US to stay as long as it takes.

So, once again, media bias and preconceived notions will rule the day instead of reality doing so.

sad that.

Do the students speak for all of Iraq? And where have you "interacted" Iraqis? If that is in the green zone I can well imagine they fear the day the US leaves.

My job certainly doesnt keep me in the Green Zone...

So the "majority" represented by the poll is somehow equaled by the "majority" you have personally met? Yet you refuse to say in what context you have met these Iraqis. Are these Iraqis working for the US in some capacity? Are they dependent on the US their livelihoods? Or are they Iraqis woken in the middle of the night with flashlights and guns in their faces? Is it not possible they say one thing to your face, yet hold another truth in their hearts? The truth reflected in the polls? There are other videos than the Baghdad student one, videos where Iraqis (not AQ or the resistance) ask the US to leave.

 

[Lemon law]

Sez Starbucks1975---

If you look back across the numerous Iraq threads since things started to go to hell in a hand basket, I have supported one strategy, and one strategy alone:

1. For America to approach the UN, admit its mistake for invading Iraq, and make a case for the wider threat now present should we depart Iraq prior to stabilizing the region. Pride and saving face at this point is cutting off our nose to spite our face.
2. Actively engage the Muslim world, perhaps attain military commitments from the neighboring countries, and place a Muslim face on the stabilization force...Egypt, Saudi Arabia and perhaps Turkey come to mind. Would also have to engage other global players like China, Russia and yes even Iran.
3. Never should have disbanded the Iraqi military machine, but hindsight is 20/20. Actively engage former Iraqi military commanders and tribal leaders to provide for a more robust Iraqi security presence...even in post WW2 Germany and Japan, we found competent military leaders who were once our adversaries but played a crucial role in reconstruction efforts.
4. Estalbish a time table that limits American military forces to logistics support and security of strategic points...remove American faces from patrols and other forms of presence so as to remove the perception of an occupation force.
5. Actively engage Pakistan and aggressively flush out the Al Quaida presence there.
6. Recognize all insurgency groups with the exception of Al Quaida. Bring the Baathists, Kurds, Shi'ites, Sunnis and tribal leaders to the negotiating table.
7. Use American military forces to primarily to secure Iraq's borders...with our technology and recon assets, stop the flow of arms from Iran, Syria and other neighboring countries that are feeding the foreign fighter and Al Quaida elements in Iraq.
8. Most importantly, recognize that we screwed up big time, and will have to make concessions accordingly that may contradict our short term strategic interests.[/quote]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As long as that can come up with the troops needed to stabilize Iraq---you have the nucleus of a workable plan---at least in MHO.

But exactly two things to note.

1. It places you 100% opposed to GWB---GWB won't implement any part of that plan.

2. Why are you dragging in Ms. Kagen, who is totally clueless, into this discussion?

 

[Starbuck1975]

It places you 100% opposed to GWB---GWB won't implement any part of that plan.

I never said I was a proponent of Bush or his strategy in Iraq.

Why are you dragging in Ms. Kagen, who is totally clueless, into this discussion?

Because a guy I used to serve with forwarded me the editorial she wrote in the WSJ...he is currently in Iraq, and felt her summary adequately reflects what he has seen since the surge began.

What I meant was this is how the right wing operates. You presented this person as a respected academic, when in fact they are a neocon. Typical of right wing politics, like the fake reporter in the white house pool of reporters, paid columnists to spout their line, etc, etc, etc... These neocons have been wrong about everything, so why would I believe anything they have to say. I don't have an argument, except that neocons are always wrong.

So you automatically dismiss any academic that supports Bush, the NeoCons or the current strategy in Iraq.

So by your logic, I will dismiss you as always wrong given your extremely biased and partisan worldview.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

It places you 100% opposed to GWB---GWB won't implement any part of that plan.

I never said I was a proponent of Bush or his strategy in Iraq.

Why are you dragging in Ms. Kagen, who is totally clueless, into this discussion?

Because a guy I used to serve with forwarded me the editorial she wrote in the WSJ...he is currently in Iraq, and felt her summary adequately reflects what he has seen since the surge began.

What I meant was this is how the right wing operates. You presented this person as a respected academic, when in fact they are a neocon. Typical of right wing politics, like the fake reporter in the white house pool of reporters, paid columnists to spout their line, etc, etc, etc... These neocons have been wrong about everything, so why would I believe anything they have to say. I don't have an argument, except that neocons are always wrong.

So you automatically dismiss any academic that supports Bush, the NeoCons or the current strategy in Iraq.

So by your logic, I will dismiss you as always wrong given your extremely biased and partisan worldview.

No, that's not my logic. If someone has screwed up consistently, like the Bush admin has, you either get rid of them, or at least quit listening to them.
The war on terror, the Iraq war, Katrina, immigration enforcement, deficits, gas prices, value of the dollar, health care-everything they touch turns to shit. So quit listening to them. I dismiss any academic that is a paid shill for the adminstration.
You cannot dismiss me as wrong so easily, I haven't screwed up everthing I've touched.
I doesn't matter if I am extremely biased and partisan, because I am oftentimes right.
Such as when I voted against GWB twice.
You're rooting for a losing team, that won't get better until they clean house and rebuild.
The Democrats may be in disarray, but the Republicans are rotten to the core.

 

[Lemon law]

To Starbucks1975 who makes the following statement---So you automatically dismiss any academic that supports Bush, the NeoCons or the current strategy in Iraq.

If I made that dismissal on the basis that I am automatically opposed to academics that support GWB, Neocons, or the current strategy in Iraq, you might have some reason to make the assumption that you did---but since you did not even bother to consider that I concluded the words of Ms. were clueless after I read the article and for a reason totally unrelated to any you postulated---I have to conclude its you who is totally off base and biased.

But if you want to know why I think Ms. kagan is clueless---its because she seems to want to assume the Iraqi insurgency is directly related to Al-Quida. And her thesis seems to be, since Al-Quida is suffering some reversals lately, that the surge is working.

And anyone who bothers to review the body of my collective posts on Iraq and Afghaistan can't help but notice that I attribute the various insurgencies to local leaders being sucked into power vacuum resulting from anarchy the US occupations created---and then setting up various fiefdoms to perpetuate their power.

 

[ProfJohn]

If you ignore the noise coming out of Washington and just focus on what is going on in Iraq you will see that we are making progress.

1. Last October Al Anbar was called the ?wild west? and AQ had even set up the ?Islamic State of Iran? today AQ is nearly gone from Anbar.
2. Prior to the surge they were finding 50 bodies a day on the street of Baghdad, that number has fallen drastically since the surge started.
3. Through out the entire country of Iraq the death toll has dropped around 30% since the surge started.
4. Sunnis who were fighting against us and with AQ six months ago are now asking for our help to eliminated AQ.

Just about any way you look at it our military is doing a great job of turning things around in Iraq.
Sadly thought the Iraq leadership is a total mess. On top of that the American people have lost patience with the war and just want the bad news to go away.
Combine these two things and it is very likely that we will give up on a war we can win due to political reasons.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: marincounty
Nice link, too bad your source has ZERO credibility.
link
I vouched for Kimberly Kagan's academic credentials in linking to her assessment of the progress of the "surge" for the Weekly Standard. I should have disclosed that Kagan is the wife of Frederick Kagan, the principal author of the surge; and his brother is Bob Kagan, another pro-surge advocate and editor at the Weekly Standard, and they're both sons of Donald Kagan, who is also a neoconservative intellectual. More to the point: Kimberly Kagan is listed as one of the participants in her husband's research team that came up with the surge in the first place. So when the Weekly Standard decided to compile a regular report on the surge's progress, they picked the wife of the main author and one of the plan's original architects. And they never disclosed these relevant facts. So allow me.

DID ANYBODY READ THAT? I've seen no response.

And the people who oppose the war are getting their information from anti-war web sites.

I am not sure if there is a good source for new about Iraq that does not have some sort of bias to it.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
There is a section on Nationalreview.com that talks about the war and it is filled mainly with military personnel and experts. If you go there you will read a lot of stories and posts similar to the OP.
By most accounts our military is doing an excellent job in Iraq.

The problem is the failures of the political leadership in both Iraq and America.
The Iraqis can?t put aside their differences in order to solve long standing questions. And our anti-war supporting leaders send the message that if you can just kill enough people that we will give up and go home.

Some time around next April the surge will run out of man power and we will not be able to maintain the current level of troops in Iraq. At that time I would expect us to begin a gradual withdrawal of as many as half our forces. (The writing is on the wall based on recent stories coming from the White House.) Let?s just hope that this gives the Iraq people and government enough time to get it right.

Next April? What was all that 'September' talk when the surge was first implemented?

I think you misunderstood my point.

From my understanding: in order to have the surge we have extended the deployment of some troops and moved up the deployment of others. This is putting a strain on the military and around April they will have to start drawing down the number of troops in Iraq, or extending deployments even longer.

I am not saying that we have to wait until April to make a decision on the surge, I am saying that the surge will almost certainly have to end in April regardless of its results.

 

[Starbuck1975]

But if you want to know why I think Ms. kagan is clueless---its because she seems to want to assume the Iraqi insurgency is directly related to Al-Quida. And her thesis seems to be, since Al-Quida is suffering some reversals lately, that the surge is working.

True, but Al Quaida is the only threat keeping our troops in Iraq, even if our invasion is what established an Al Quaida threat in Iraq to begin with.

At this point, our strategy is quite simple...we have to ensure that Iraq does not evolve into another Taliban controlled Afghanistan, where Al Quaida has free reign to organize, train and plan.

Recent developments indicate that the tribal factions, religious factions and Baathist remnants of the insurgency...while they have no love for our occupation, they have even less love for Al Quaida.

Through the surge, if we engage our former enemies in the Iraqi resistance to cleanse Iraq of Al Quaida, our mission is complete.

We cannot solve the social dynamics fueling the ethnic violence in Iraq...that is something the Iraqi people will have to figure out for themselves...but we can unify the various factions in Iraq through the surge to wipe out Al Quaida.

 

[tomywishbone]

Perhaps it's not working.

80 die today