Shumer: Anbar improved despite the Surge

[Lemon law]

I heard the same thing on NPR this morning and not the Shumer version TLC is complaining about. But basically from the version I heard, TLC and prehaps Shumer also manages to get everything wrong if the spin is to be---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.

When in fact the program to work with Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar was the brainchild of some bright Marine Corp officers and started at least a year before the surge was even conceived as a domestic political ploy by GWB. So yes some parts of the US military were able to come up and implement a successful program that addressed political issues in Anbar and the success in Anbar province has almost nothing to do with the actual surge itself.

But its does perhaps imply that since the various Iraqi insurgencies are well established and entrenched, some of our smarter military officers can put together innovative programs that effect political solutions rather than stick to the knee jerk dogma that the military must confront and kill to win. And there are just smarter ways to skin a cat in Iraq.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

That nice what NPR said, LL, but this thread is about what Shumer said.

Thanks.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

-snip-

But its does perhaps imply that since the various Iraqi insurgencies are well established and entrenched, some of our smarter military officers can put together innovative programs that effect political solutions rather than stick to the knee jerk dogma that the military must confront and kill to win. And there are just smarter ways to skin a cat in Iraq.

Yes, for a change I agree with you

Shumer, and eskimospy above, both make the mistake of acting like the surge was nothing other than a slight increase in troop levels, and overlook that a big part of the it was new counter-insurgency tactics. (I believe Patreaus is responsible for that. I understand that he is the author of the military manual on such tactics.)

So, Shumer's attempt to credit forces other than the US military for the improvement is dishonest, at best. However, I will concede that AQ's over-reaching has helped turn Iraqi Sunni's from away from them (as Christoph Hitchens pointed out in his recent article). But to deny credit to the military, who took advantage of an opponets weakness, is simply wrong.

Fern

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: 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!

So says the rightwingnut Hillary-hater who was prediciting the R's were going to gain seats in the Congress last election and Pelosi wouldn't be speaker.

Do these quotes sound familar??


Yeah, and that land might be sliding in the opposite direction you are expecting

No, she won't be elected speaker. The Dems won't have the majority to worry about it

Now what was that you were saying about "running scared" again?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Yes, for a change I agree with you

Shumer, and eskimospy above, both make the mistake of acting like the surge was nothing other than a slight increase in troop levels, and overlook that a big part of the it was new counter-insurgency tactics. (I believe Patreaus is responsible for that. I understand that he is the author of the military manual on such tactics.)

So, Shumer's attempt to credit forces other than the US military for the improvement is dishonest, at best. However, I will concede that AQ's over-reaching has helped turn Iraqi Sunni's from away from them (as Christoph Hitchens pointed out in his recent article). But to deny credit to the military, who took advantage of an opponets weakness, is simply wrong.

Fern

But as said above, this started before the surge ever happened. That's improper temporal ordering.

 

[palehorse]

For the record, very few of you, on either side, have any real understanding of the situation, past and present, in Anbar and Baghdad. While some of you hit on an accurate point from time to time, the majority of your theories and summaries are entirely inaccurate. The scary thing is that you base your entire position on those inaccuracies, and then it snowballs across the net and the world as you compound one falsehood with another... and another... and another. (and no, I wont even attempt to start listing each of your mistakes and false beliefs... it would overwhelm (read: bore) me too quickly).

Some times, it drives me nuts that some of you sound so damn sure of yourselves while having no real clue what you're talking about... other times, it cracks me up. So I guess it's all good, eh?

I wish there was a way to accurately describe the details and realities; but, alas, it will take a much better author than I to do so. Maybe some of you will go there and see for yourselves.... but I highly doubt it.

sad that...

/rant off

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
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.

How about we see the Petraeus Report and then have our little debate?

Your strength behind the keyboard amuses me. :laugh:

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Do these quotes sound familar??

Yeah, because you've never made an inaccurate prediction. Or a mistake. Right?

And what exactly does this have to do with the topic at hand? I swear, some of you guys could make a damn fine living as Obfuscator General.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: 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.

Right, because they are the only ones who screwed up. Invading Iraq to look for WMD's was a brilliant move. :roll: Screwing up post invasion reconstruction was a stroke of genius too.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
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.

How about we see the Petraeus Report and then have our little debate?

Your strength behind the keyboard amuses me. :laugh:

Ahh, so you'll take a pre-packaged BS report rather than cold hard facts?

and, just as I suspected, you've got nothing to refute those facts.

Your lack of strength, in front, behind, on the side, on top, or underneath the keyboard doesn't amuse me, because jokes are usually unexpected, you're a joke that's worn out and dilapidated and is completely expected.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Ahh, so you'll take a pre-packaged BS report rather than cold hard facts?

You're making ASSumptions, as usual.

I'm not surprised. You're clearly invested in defeat with the rest of your party.

I'm saying wait for the report, look at the facts, and then debate.

Of course, you aren't interested in facts. You just like pissing contests...Enjoy.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern

-snip-.

Fern

........That's improper temporal ordering.

:thumbsup: Best phrase of the day, hands down. 10/10

Makes me wanna go watch Star Trek

Fern

 

[Lemon law]

As palehorse74 comes up with---For the record, very few of you, on either side, have any real understanding of the situation, past and present, in Anbar and Baghdad.

1. You would be far more credible palehorse74 if you could actually string some success together but you seem to be a tireless advocate of what amounts to a failed strategy.

2. I came up with the NPR version of what happened in Anbar. And in that version some innovate officers who think almost 100% different than you do came up with something that actually worked. Namely a local political rather than a military solution. And all the rest of your post does is poo poo the NPR version without you doing anything but claiming to lack the articulation to explain why that interpretation is wrong.

3.In short, please explain why you disagree or shut up. And why does conceding that our military can actually effect political solutions so offend you to a point of in articulation?
And gasp---the US military can actually do better by being smarter and less violent. I suspect the latter point is what frosts your balls.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Ahh, so you'll take a pre-packaged BS report rather than cold hard facts?

You're making ASSumptions, as usual.

I'm not surprised. You're clearly invested in defeat with the rest of your party.

I'm saying wait for the report, look at the facts, and then debate.

Of course, you aren't interested in facts. You just like pissing contests...Enjoy.

Ahh yes, when the message can't be defeated, attempt to defeat the messanger.

I looked at the facts, the deaths, the reconstruction failures, the Iraqi military failures, the Iraqi police failures...etc. Nothing, outside of perhaps maybe a canned report from Patraeus will say anything different than what I have said.

I am not "invested in defeat", I am invested in oversight, the correct thing to do, and reasonability in our actions. There has been little to no oversight, we have yet to do the correct thing, and every action undertaken in the last 4 years has not been reasonable.

I don't like pissing contests, but I sure like making people like you look like doofs through your inability to think for yourself.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
As palehorse74 comes up with---For the record, very few of you, on either side, have any real understanding of the situation, past and present, in Anbar and Baghdad.

1. You would be far more credible palehorse74 if you could actually string some success together but you seem to be a tireless advocate of what amounts to a failed strategy.

2. I came up with the NPR version of what happened in Anbar. And in that version some innovate officers who think almost 100% different than you do came up with something that actually worked. Namely a local political rather than a military solution. And all the rest of your post does is poo poo the NPR version without you doing anything but claiming to lack the articulation to explain why that interpretation is wrong.

3.In short, please explain why you disagree or shut up. And why does conceding that our military can actually effect political solutions so offend you to a point of in articulation?
And gasp---the US military can actually do better by being smarter and less violent. I suspect the latter point is what frosts your balls.

For the last fvcking time, I have never been against accomplishing both political and military objectives simultaneously, nor have I ever advocated a purely military solution. Hell, my entire job relies upon liaison work and other means of battling the issues. I no longer spend my days carrying a rifle. I now prefer to carry a 9mm, a notepad, and a smile!

You could not have been farther from the truth. So thank you for once again putting words in my mouth.

It's becoming an annoying trend with you, and I haven't been your only victim. Please refrain from doing so in the future and we may begin to take you seriously.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I am not "invested in defeat", I am invested in oversight, the correct thing to do, and reasonability in our actions. There has been little to no oversight, we have yet to do the correct thing, and every action undertaken in the last 4 years has not been reasonable.

And what "oversight" might you provide? What are your credentials?

I'll take the word of a General over yours any day of the week.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I am not "invested in defeat", I am invested in oversight, the correct thing to do, and reasonability in our actions. There has been little to no oversight, we have yet to do the correct thing, and every action undertaken in the last 4 years has not been reasonable.

And what "oversight" might you provide? What are your credentials?

I'll take the word of a General over yours any day of the week.

Except obviously on the day of the week when Shinseki was saying that invading Iraq would need hundreds of thousands more troops. I trust the generals too, but not when they are getting their talking points from Bush and pushed out if they speak their mind.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Right, because they are the only ones who screwed up. Invading Iraq to look for WMD's was a brilliant move. :roll: Screwing up post invasion reconstruction was a stroke of genius too.

Look, if you want to dwell on past history then we shall peer down the rabbit hole to see how far it goes. But in actuality 20/20 vision leads to nothing more than a slippery slope. We may as well wish Saddam's great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather had never been born. That would've solved the problem.

The anti-war crowd needs to STOP living in the past and get up to snuff to what is today. All this crying over spilled milk is ridiculous, rhetorical, hyperbole, and ultimately nothing more than trolling. The past cannot be changed until you develop a time travel machine. So either develop the machine or let's deal with what's happening in the here and now.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The anti-war crowd needs to STOP living in the past and get up to snuff to what is today. All this crying over spilled milk is ridiculous, rhetorical, hyperbole, and ultimately nothing more than trolling.

Well said. :thumbsup:

 

[theeedude]

Actually, it's the pro-war crowd that is living in the past. If we leave now, all this sacrifice is for nothing, etc. It's called sunk cost, look it up. Water under the bridge. That's what kept us in VietNam much longer than we needed to, we couldn't break with the past. Plus, while the past may be past, it can be used to evaluate the credibility of people supporting the war in order to make decisions about the future. Should I trust this administration to properly handle Iraq when they turned everything they touched to crap in the past?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: 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?

America had nothing to do with the success in Anbar. That's been common knowledge since last fall when the sunnis turned against Al Qaeda. The surge started in January.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I am not "invested in defeat", I am invested in oversight, the correct thing to do, and reasonability in our actions. There has been little to no oversight, we have yet to do the correct thing, and every action undertaken in the last 4 years has not been reasonable.

And what "oversight" might you provide? What are your credentials?

I'll take the word of a General over yours any day of the week.

My credentials? I could go into my 10 years of post-high school education, or my high paying job at an international investment bank, but I won't. They don't matter, but this does.

AMERICAN

That means that I can question anybody, absolutely, without question. Why? Because it's my right and duty as an American to question the motives, actions, and hold our government accountable because they work for us.

You think that this is old news, it isn't. People need to be held accountable for their mistakes, it happens in the real world and needs to happen in the government. If it was Clinton and he had gotten away with something like this you'd be crying bloody murder.

Your double standard is disgusting.

You have yet to show me any proof that my numbers are false. I am sure you're going to parade around some metric that Patraeus will show, but the fact remains is that despite a large % in troops, more than 60% more troops died this year than last. Your single shining star, Anbar, is one example of something different than the general trend. However, you fail to point out Ayala province, which experienced a 2000% increase.

Sorry, but your logic sucks, your "wait and see what the puppet says" sucks and your facts are inconsistant.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Sorry, but your logic sucks, your "wait and see what the puppet says" sucks and your facts are inconsistant.

The fact that you consider the top General on the ground a "puppet" means any serious, logical discussion is out of the question. Please come back when you can have a real debate.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Sorry, but your logic sucks, your "wait and see what the puppet says" sucks and your facts are inconsistant.

The fact that you consider the top General on the ground a "puppet" means any serious, logical discussion is out of the question. Please come back when you can have a real debate.

The General works directly for the President. Look at Harvey's thread, the Petreaus report will be produced by the White House.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
That nice what NPR said, LL, but this thread is about what Shumer said.

Thanks.

Well its nice that you concede what NPR said is likely true, but since when is dumping on Shumer the only over riding concern of this thread?

Given that Shumer uses political spins and GWB&co has far many more minions engaged in the political spin, why do you think its so sacred to only focus on only the spin of Shumer?

Whats is wrong with discussing the truth for a change?

I think the evident outrage you show in your post speaks volumes about your desire to spin things your way.