Perhaps the Surge is Working

[jonks]

Originally posted by: tomywishbone
Perhaps it's not working.

80 die today

So your metric for success in a war strategy would be no deaths? I'm skeptical the surge is working too, but this isn't proof of anything.

 

[SickBeast]

Why doesn't the US just pull out of Iraq and see what happens? If all hell breaks loose, you guys can always just go back and try again. All of this fortune telling from the same people who said they had WMDs...

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Why doesn't the US just pull out of Iraq and see what happens? If all hell breaks loose, you guys can always just go back and try again. All of this fortune telling from the same people who said they had WMDs...

I think there is a problem with that strategy because after the will of the people (the US people) dictates pull out, moving around 140,000 troops, the hundreds of thousand civilian contractors, the hardware (humvees, tanks, planes, etc) will take quite an effort.And if things fell apart in Iraq, it would take another monumental effort ot motivate the will of the people (the US) to demand our leaders send our troops back.

If they pull out, they're not gonna jump right back in. Not for years anyway.

 

[tomywishbone]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: tomywishbone
Perhaps it's not working.

80 die today

So your metric for success in a war strategy would be no deaths? I'm skeptical the surge is working too, but this isn't proof of anything.

It's proof of one thing; 80 Iraqis were killed today, in a civil war, started by the United States of America. It's proof of that.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Why doesn't the US just pull out of Iraq and see what happens? If all hell breaks loose, you guys can always just go back and try again. All of this fortune telling from the same people who said they had WMDs...

I think there is a problem with that strategy because after the will of the people (the US people) dictates pull out, moving around 140,000 troops, the hundreds of thousand civilian contractors, the hardware (humvees, tanks, planes, etc) will take quite an effort.And if things fell apart in Iraq, it would take another monumental effort ot motivate the will of the people (the US) to demand our leaders send our troops back.

If they pull out, they're not gonna jump right back in. Not for years anyway.

They could always park the aircraft carriers in Dubai, give the troops a nice rest and vacation, see what happens, and go back if necessary. :light:

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: tomywishbone

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: tomywishbone
Perhaps it's not working.

80 die today

So your metric for success in a war strategy would be no deaths? I'm skeptical the surge is working too, but this isn't proof of anything.

It's proof of one thing; 80 Iraqis were killed today, in a civil war, started by the United States of America. It's proof of that.

I didn't mean to trivialize the loss of life. I was merely pointing out that casualty counts alone do not show whether a strategy is effective. In the first few hours on D Day, thousands of allied soldiers were gunned down trying to storm the beaches. Thousands, in a couple of hours. The military didn't say, hey, we have to change plans. Let's pack it up and get out of here. At the battle of the bulge, 80,000 troops died.

Casualties are part of war, and of course they play a part in determining strategy. But you can't point to one car bomb going off as proof that a military strategy isn't working. Or even 10 car bombs. It's an appeal to emotion, and effective on that level, but not very useful as an overall argument.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: tomywishbone

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: tomywishbone
Perhaps it's not working.

80 die today

So your metric for success in a war strategy would be no deaths? I'm skeptical the surge is working too, but this isn't proof of anything.

It's proof of one thing; 80 Iraqis were killed today, in a civil war, started by the United States of America. It's proof of that.

I didn't mean to trivialize the loss of life. I was merely pointing out that casualty counts alone do not show whether a strategy is effective. In the first few hours on D Day, thousands of allied soldiers were gunned down trying to storm the beaches. Thousands, in a couple of hours. The military didn't say, hey, we have to change plans. Let's pack it up and get out of here. At the battle of the bulge, 80,000 troops died.

Casualties are part of war, and of course they play a part in determining strategy. But you can't point to one car bomb going off as proof that a military strategy isn't working. Or even 10 car bombs. It's an appeal to emotion, and effective on that level, but not very useful as an overall argument.

VERY...WELL...SAID!

 

[Orignal Earl]

Maybe after the US gets all the walls built, things will quiet down a little.... for awhile anyway

US Troops Build Walls at Night

 

[StageLeft]

Well it seems now they're considering a "greater surge" after September's report is inevitably a bad one. Big surprise there. I predicted, as anybody with a brain did, that this surge would be inadequate/ineffective.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Well it seems now they're considering a "greater surge" after September's report is inevitably a bad one. Big surprise there. I predicted, as anybody with a brain did, that this surge would be inadequate/ineffective.

Yep. More parallels to Vietnam. The Generals to the Politicians: "Send more troops".

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Why doesn't the US just pull out of Iraq and see what happens?

If all hell breaks loose, you guys can always just go back and try again.

All of this fortune telling from the same people who said they had WMDs...

Can't do that because would lose control of the oil.

That is the only reason we are there and ever there to begin with.