Shumer: Anbar improved despite the Surge

[TastesLikeChicken]

http://www.townhall.com/blog/g...4f21-9cb3-ce190f316648

Seems Shumer's comments somehow got by the vigilant MSM so I have to link to Townhall.

And let me be clear, the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda said to these tribes we have to fight al Qaeda ourselves. It wasn't that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here. And that is because there was no one else there protecting.

And there you have it. The Dems are trying to figure out deperately how to acknowledge the improvement in Iraq yet remove any and all credit from the US military. And the very same group that claimed we didn't understand the social fabric of Iraq and weren't willing to work with the Iraqi tribes are suddenly complaining becase WE ARE DOING THAT VERY THING. Can you guys make up your mind? Despite the numerous reports of how our military working with and supporting the tribal shieks fighting against al Qaeda, and winning hearts and minds in the process, Shumer tries to deny it.

Shumer's attempted spin to downplay any accomplishments in Iraq are typical of him and his base today. Twist, distort, conflate; he's got it all going on. He's employing all the tricks. It's quite a display of, what's that term the progessives love to use? Oh, yeah - "cognitive dissonance."

But don't forget that they support the troops.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
http://www.townhall.com/blog/g...4f21-9cb3-ce190f316648

Seems Shumer's comments somehow got by the vigilant MSM so I have to link to Townhall.

And let me be clear, the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda said to these tribes we have to fight al Qaeda ourselves. It wasn't that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here. And that is because there was no one else there protecting.

And there you have it. The Dems are trying to figure out deperately how to acknowledge the improvement in Iraq yet remove any and all credit from the US military. And the very same group that claimed we didn't understand the social fabric of Iraq and weren't willing to work with the Iraqi tribes are suddenly complaining becase WE ARE DOING THAT VERY THING. Can you guys make up your mind? Despite the numerous reports of how our military working with and supporting the tribal shieks fighting against al Qaeda, and winning hearts and minds in the process, Shumer tries to deny it.

Shumer's attempted spin to downplay any accomplishments in Iraq are typical of him and his base today. Twist, distort, conflate; he's got it all going on. He's employing all the tricks. It's quite a display of, what's that term the progessives love to use? Oh, yeah - "cognitive dissonance."

But don't forget that they support the troops.

Right pocket, left pocket. It doesn't matter where the casualties occur, or where they don't. All that matters is that they are reducing, are they? Not even close, they are accelerating.

Nice spin though.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
http://www.townhall.com/blog/g...4f21-9cb3-ce190f316648

Seems Shumer's comments somehow got by the vigilant MSM so I have to link to Townhall.

And let me be clear, the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda said to these tribes we have to fight al Qaeda ourselves. It wasn't that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here. And that is because there was no one else there protecting.

And there you have it. The Dems are trying to figure out deperately how to acknowledge the improvement in Iraq yet remove any and all credit from the US military. And the very same group that claimed we didn't understand the social fabric of Iraq and weren't willing to work with the Iraqi tribes are suddenly complaining becase WE ARE DOING THAT VERY THING. Can you guys make up your mind? Despite the numerous reports of how our military working with and supporting the tribal shieks fighting against al Qaeda, and winning hearts and minds in the process, Shumer tries to deny it.

Shumer's attempted spin to downplay any accomplishments in Iraq are typical of him and his base today. Twist, distort, conflate; he's got it all going on. He's employing all the tricks. It's quite a display of, what's that term the progessives love to use? Oh, yeah - "cognitive dissonance."

But don't forget that they support the troops.

Right pocket, left pocket. It doesn't matter where the casualties occur, or where they don't. All that matters is that they are reducing, are they? Not even close, they are accelerating.

Nice spin though.

So you agree with Chucky? The US had nothing to do with the improvement in Anbar?

 

[theeedude]

I agree with Shumer, I wouldn't trust a Republican about anything having to do with Iraq. They are too politically invested in it to tell the truth. They lied to get us into that war, and keep lying to keep us in it.
Anbar improved because we made deals with insurgents, not because of the surge. That's why other areas have not improved. We haven't made the right deals there.

 

[1EZduzit]

In reality, the improvement in the US position in Anbar has nothing to do with the surge and the deployment of 30,000 extra American troops. The change in the military situation in the province is a result of a split in the Sunni guerrilla movement between an al-Qa'ida umbrella organization called the Islamic State of Iraq and the rest of the Sunni guerrillas.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
In reality, the improvement in the US position in Anbar has nothing to do with the surge and the deployment of 30,000 extra American troops. The change in the military situation in the province is a result of a split in the Sunni guerrilla movement between an al-Qa'ida umbrella organization called the Islamic State of Iraq and the rest of the Sunni guerrillas.

LIBRUL MEDIA :thumbsdown:

 

[Pabster]

What a surprise. Democrats are running scared, desperately trying to play down the Petraeus Report which hasn't even been delivered yet!

What a sad, pathetic position to be in that you must pray for bad news and literally relish in it to assist your political fortunes. Such is the state of the Democratic Party.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: senseamp
I agree with Shumer, I wouldn't trust a Republican about anything having to do with Iraq. They are too politically invested in it to tell the truth. They lied to get us into that war, and keep lying to keep us in it.

I'll take a Republican invested in Victory over a Democrat invested in defeat any fvcking day.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: senseamp
I agree with Shumer, I wouldn't trust a Republican about anything having to do with Iraq. They are too politically invested in it to tell the truth. They lied to get us into that war, and keep lying to keep us in it.
Anbar improved because we made deals with insurgents, not because of the surge. That's why other areas have not improved. We haven't made the right deals there.

There are serious comprehension issues by a few in here.

Shumer stated: "And let me be clear, the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge."

If you're arguing that it's being claimed the surge is responsible for improvements in Anbar, you're addressing Shumer's straw man and nothing that I claimed. My comment about the US military was that the military was working WITH the tribes. While that's a Patraeus strategy it is not related to the Surge. The Surge was primiarily focused on Baghdad.

So those who "agree" with Shumer are propagating the same straw man he is.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Pabster
What a surprise. Democrats are running scared, desperately trying to play down the Petraeus Report which hasn't even been delivered yet!

What a sad, pathetic position to be in that you must pray for bad news and literally relish in it to assist your political fortunes. Such is the state of the Democratic Party.

WTF you babbling about?

If anybody's running scared right now it's the GOP. Since the last election so many of you are truly certifiable.

Take a deep breath and repeat after me:

The insurgency is in it's last throes.

The insurgency is in it's last throes.

The insurgency is in it's last throes.

The insurgency is in it's last throes.

The insurgency is in it's last throes.

There now, don't you feel better.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
WTF you babbling about?

A bunch of left-wing moonbats so invested in defeat they can't see straight. And thanks for proving my point!

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Pabster
What a surprise. Democrats are running scared, desperately trying to play down the Petraeus Report which hasn't even been delivered yet!

What a sad, pathetic position to be in that you must pray for bad news and literally relish in it to assist your political fortunes. Such is the state of the Democratic Party.

Don't worry. The Democrats are already employing their pre-emptive strategy in regard to Petraeus himself.

http://washingtontimes.com/app.../NATION/109060064/1001

"The Bush report?" Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin said when asked about the upcoming report from Gen. Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq.

Now they're calling it the "Bush Report?" lawl. The Democratic talking points memo must have been refreshed on Monday. They have an entirely new way to spin it now.

 

[Fern]

Ahhhhh. Now I see what has outraged so many about Shumer.

I almost hope he keeps it up. It is remarks like those which turn so many off to the Dems.

Yes, the Repubs are invested in succeeding in Iraq, just as the Dems are invested in us failing.

Shumer would have us believe *bad news* is bad, and even *good news* is bad.

IMO, his remarks serve to discredit any critism of the upcoming report, even before we get it.

Fern

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: senseamp
I agree with Shumer, I wouldn't trust a Republican about anything having to do with Iraq. They are too politically invested in it to tell the truth. They lied to get us into that war, and keep lying to keep us in it.
Anbar improved because we made deals with insurgents, not because of the surge. That's why other areas have not improved. We haven't made the right deals there.

There are serious comprehension issues by a few in here.

Shumer stated: "And let me be clear, the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge."

No comprehension issues here. I comprehend what he's saying, and I agree with him. Do you comprehend that?

If you're arguing that it's being claimed the surge is responsible for improvements in Anbar, you're addressing Shumer's straw man and nothing that I claimed. My comment about the US military was that the military was working WITH the tribes. While that's a Patraeus strategy it is not related to the Surge. The Surge was primiarily focused on Baghdad.
So those who "agree" with Shumer are propagating the same straw man he is.

Well there you go surge is primarily focused on Baghdad, and it's a mess. Only thing surging there is number of deaths. Anbar is improving despite of the surge because we aren't fighting the insurgents there, we are dealing with them. You know, like we could have dealt with Saddam Hussein and avoided this whole mess entirely.

 

[nageov3t]

just because two events are correlated doesn't make them causative.

but there's something seriously wrong with this discourse if we can't discuss an issue without having to revert to calling each other traitors.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Pabster
What a surprise. Democrats are running scared, desperately trying to play down the Petraeus Report which hasn't even been delivered yet!

What a sad, pathetic position to be in that you must pray for bad news and literally relish in it to assist your political fortunes. Such is the state of the Democratic Party.

Lets replay this a little bit.


Lets start here. Notice how 2007 is the highest for every month. That equates to an average of 67.55% increase in casualties, per month, compared to 2006. How is that doing better?

http://icasualties.org/oif/ByYearGraph.aspx

Looking at the per-province figures for 2006 to 2007 MOM increases.

Only 6 out of 16 provinces experienced a decline, with Anbar seeing a 31.31% drop, from 214 to 147. Baghdad experienced a 158.14% increase, 129 to 333. The highest increase was 2335% for Diyala province, 4 to 97 casualties. The biggest drop was Wasit, 3 to 0, or Ninawa, 29 to 9. On average there was a 211.74% increase.

Benchmarks not met.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295704,00.html

If you can't meet the benchmarks, change the benchmarks!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295110,00.html

Building projects failed.
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/ArticleID/7499

National police force should be disbanded
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295110,00.html

Iraq's army sucks, despite years of trying to train it.
http://www.navytimes.com/news/...ao_iraqreport_070905w/


Yeah, the surge has worked all right. It's worked at killing more soldiers, worsening almost all areas while improving a few minorly. Yet, you and your Bushistas will fail to recognize cold hard facts because you will suport him despite any proof.

I dare you to come up with any data, facts, or evidence to show that I am wrong. Otherwise you are, as always, nothing but a brainless troll.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: senseamp
I agree with Shumer, I wouldn't trust a Republican about anything having to do with Iraq. They are too politically invested in it to tell the truth. They lied to get us into that war, and keep lying to keep us in it.

I'll take a Republican invested in Victory over a Democrat invested in defeat any fvcking day.

OK, where is that Victory you invested in?
The only thing Republicans are still invested in is quagmire.
They aren't invested in Victory, they are stuck on stupid, or maybe waiting for a Democrat to come along to blame for this whole mess like they did with Vietnam.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: loki8481
just because two events are correlated doesn't make them causative.

but there's something seriously wrong with this discourse if we can't discuss an issue without having to revert to calling each other traitors.

"You're either with us or against us."

 

[BMW540I6speed]

The enemy of my enemy is my freind...

The change in the military situation & the US position in Anbar province is a result of a split in the Sunni guerrilla movement between an al-Qaida umbrella organization called the "Islamic State of Iraq" and the rest of the Sunni guerrillas.

The Islamic State of Iraq created widespread anger among the Sunni community by killing anybody connected with the government, such as garbage collectors or lowly employees of ministries. They were also seeking to draft one young man from each Sunni family into their forces.

The US is now backing and arming Sunni tribal militias who do not answer to the Iraqi government, while pressing Maliki to clamp down on the Shia militias, notably the anti-American Mehdi Army led by Muqtada al-Sadr.

Bush may be giving a hostage to fortune by claiming a major success in Anbar because, since the improvement in the military situation had something to do with the US, the Sunni guerrillas could compose their differences and resume the offensive.

The administration has been seeking to give the impression that the US military may at last be turning the corner in Iraq, though Iraqi politicians in Baghdad believe very little has changed on the ground.

One sign that Iraqis themselves believe security in the country is getting worse is that the number of Iraqis fleeing their homes in fear of their lives has risen from 50,000 a month to 60,000 a month according to the UN High Commission for Refugees. Some 4.2 million Iraqis are now refugees inside and outside the country. 1800 Iraqis were killed during the month of August.

Essentially, the argument now goes that instead of sectarian reconciliation from the capital, all politics is local. A series of handshake truces between the U.S. military and Sunni tribes - including some who not long ago fought as insurgents - is at the heart of the approach to bringing greater stability to Iraq.

The handshake truces between U.S. commanders and former Sunni insurgent groups started in Iraq's western Anbar province in late 2005, and similar initiatives are now spreading east toward Baghdad. Former insurgents agree to halt attacks on U.S. troops and instead, with U.S. backing, fight against forces associated with al-Qaida in Iraq. In return, U.S. forces are also helping Sunnis establish their own local security forces and sign up in predominantly Sunni units of the Iraqi army and police.

By strengthening Sunni groups the US could be helping to set the stage for a full-blown, if more balanced sectarian conflict, rather than a slaughter of the Sunnis by the Shiites if conflict spreads.

Gen. John Batiste, who led the Army's 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004 and 2005, observes that the military's current counterinsurgency manual - famously penned by Petraeus - calls for a ratio of one soldier for every 40 or 50 inhabitants to bring security. But Baghdad's population alone is 6 million, so the 150,000 troops there, close to the total number now in all of Iraq, may be far fewer than the number needed.

Indeed, the strategy of backing Sunni groups now may be a way to begin to make up the needed difference.

We shall see if this is the right way forward.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Some of the drops in violence in particular areas is attributed to years of "cleansing". These areas are now ethnically and religiously pure. Since all of your neighbors are now "good guys", there is no need to blow anything up.

So, why not ask for money and guns to suppress the bad AQ and act like America's buddy for now? It is acting in self interest with bonuses. It does not mean that they like us any more or that they will not use the same resources against us in the future. This whole deal in Iraq has been nothing but a long string of unintended (by the ignorant) and unforeseen (by the blind) consequences, and there is no reason to believe that it is about to change.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: senseamp
I agree with Shumer, I wouldn't trust a Republican about anything having to do with Iraq. They are too politically invested in it to tell the truth. They lied to get us into that war, and keep lying to keep us in it.
Anbar improved because we made deals with insurgents, not because of the surge. That's why other areas have not improved. We haven't made the right deals there.

There are serious comprehension issues by a few in here.

Shumer stated: "And let me be clear, the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge."

If you're arguing that it's being claimed the surge is responsible for improvements in Anbar, you're addressing Shumer's straw man and nothing that I claimed. My comment about the US military was that the military was working WITH the tribes. While that's a Patraeus strategy it is not related to the Surge. The Surge was primiarily focused on Baghdad.

So those who "agree" with Shumer are propagating the same straw man he is.

Actually about 25% of the combat troops dedicated to the surge were put in Anbar. Anbar and Baghdad were the two primary targets of it.

I don't think Shumer's wrong at all... and I think you and he disagree a lot less then you think. He was almost certainly responding to the exact claim that is being made (frequently) that the surge has somehow pacified Anbar when that is clearly not the case. In fact, I believe that statement to be 100% accurate. The tribal leaders took charge, and that made all the difference.

He wasn't downplaying accomplishments... he was just attributing them to things that many on the right don't want them attributed to. ie. Not an increase in troop levels. Anbar is an excellent example as to the ineffectiveness of our emphasis on troop concentration and pacification, and good evidence for a smaller troop presence and withdrawal from Iraq.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: senseamp
I agree with Shumer, I wouldn't trust a Republican about anything having to do with Iraq. They are too politically invested in it to tell the truth. They lied to get us into that war, and keep lying to keep us in it.
Anbar improved because we made deals with insurgents, not because of the surge. That's why other areas have not improved. We haven't made the right deals there.

There are serious comprehension issues by a few in here.

Shumer stated: "And let me be clear, the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge."

No comprehension issues here. I comprehend what he's saying, and I agree with him. Do you comprehend that?

If you're arguing that it's being claimed the surge is responsible for improvements in Anbar, you're addressing Shumer's straw man and nothing that I claimed. My comment about the US military was that the military was working WITH the tribes. While that's a Patraeus strategy it is not related to the Surge. The Surge was primiarily focused on Baghdad.
So those who "agree" with Shumer are propagating the same straw man he is.

Well there you go surge is primarily focused on Baghdad, and it's a mess. Only thing surging there is number of deaths. Anbar is improving despite of the surge because we aren't fighting the insurgents there, we are dealing with them. You know, like we could have dealt with Saddam Hussein and avoided this whole mess entirely.

Yes and Saddam should have not invaded Kuwait in the first place back in '90, then we wouldn't have to worry about making any deals with him. Coulda, shoulda, woulda has no real impact on today though.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: senseamp
I agree with Shumer, I wouldn't trust a Republican about anything having to do with Iraq. They are too politically invested in it to tell the truth. They lied to get us into that war, and keep lying to keep us in it.
Anbar improved because we made deals with insurgents, not because of the surge. That's why other areas have not improved. We haven't made the right deals there.

There are serious comprehension issues by a few in here.

Shumer stated: "And let me be clear, the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge."

No comprehension issues here. I comprehend what he's saying, and I agree with him. Do you comprehend that?

If you're arguing that it's being claimed the surge is responsible for improvements in Anbar, you're addressing Shumer's straw man and nothing that I claimed. My comment about the US military was that the military was working WITH the tribes. While that's a Patraeus strategy it is not related to the Surge. The Surge was primiarily focused on Baghdad.
So those who "agree" with Shumer are propagating the same straw man he is.

Well there you go surge is primarily focused on Baghdad, and it's a mess. Only thing surging there is number of deaths. Anbar is improving despite of the surge because we aren't fighting the insurgents there, we are dealing with them. You know, like we could have dealt with Saddam Hussein and avoided this whole mess entirely.

Yes and Saddam should have not invaded Kuwait in the first place back in '90, then we wouldn't have to worry about making any deals with him. Coulda, shoulda, woulda has no real impact on today though.

Except for the fact that the people who screwed up every step of the way in the past should not be trusted today.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Actually about 25% of the combat troops dedicated to the surge were put in Anbar. Anbar and Baghdad were the two primary targets of it.

Baghdad was the primary taget. The changes in Anbar were implemented long before the surge was put into action.

I don't think Shumer's wrong at all... and I think you and he disagree a lot less then you think. He was almost certainly responding to the exact claim that is being made (frequently) that the surge has somehow pacified Anbar when that is clearly not the case. In fact, I believe that statement to be 100% accurate. The tribal leaders took charge, and that made all the difference.

No. What Shumer is trying to claim is that the US really had nothing to do with the pacification of Anbar and that's pure, unadultrated horseshit. US forces worked hard to negotiate with the tribal shieks, and we supported them militarily as well against AQI.

In essense, Shumer is spitting on the troops and that REALLY pisses me off to see one of our own Congressmen give our military that kind of backhand.

He wasn't downplaying accomplishments... he was just attributing them to things that many on the right don't want them attributed to. ie. Not an increase in troop levels. Anbar is an excellent example as to the ineffectiveness of our emphasis on troop concentration and pacification, and good evidence for a smaller troop presence and withdrawal from Iraq.

He was avoiding what those on the left don't want the accomplishments attributed to - Petraeus's strategy in Iraq in dealing with the insurgents. That's what brought this about and Shumer didn't say one friggin word about that.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: senseamp
I agree with Shumer, I wouldn't trust a Republican about anything having to do with Iraq. They are too politically invested in it to tell the truth. They lied to get us into that war, and keep lying to keep us in it.
Anbar improved because we made deals with insurgents, not because of the surge. That's why other areas have not improved. We haven't made the right deals there.

There are serious comprehension issues by a few in here.

Shumer stated: "And let me be clear, the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge."

No comprehension issues here. I comprehend what he's saying, and I agree with him. Do you comprehend that?

If you're arguing that it's being claimed the surge is responsible for improvements in Anbar, you're addressing Shumer's straw man and nothing that I claimed. My comment about the US military was that the military was working WITH the tribes. While that's a Patraeus strategy it is not related to the Surge. The Surge was primiarily focused on Baghdad.
So those who "agree" with Shumer are propagating the same straw man he is.

Well there you go surge is primarily focused on Baghdad, and it's a mess. Only thing surging there is number of deaths. Anbar is improving despite of the surge because we aren't fighting the insurgents there, we are dealing with them. You know, like we could have dealt with Saddam Hussein and avoided this whole mess entirely.

Yes and Saddam should have not invaded Kuwait in the first place back in '90, then we wouldn't have to worry about making any deals with him. Coulda, shoulda, woulda has no real impact on today though.

Except for the fact that the people who screwed up every step of the way in the past should not be trusted today.

In that case you must either be talking about Saddam or the UN.