| Author | Post |
|---|
hapjac69
Member
|
Posted: Wed Mar 19th, 2008 02:10 am |
|
One of my main concerns about this Oil company war . Will the boys that have to fight this one be treated fairly when they come back to the world ? Bush already hides them as thier bodies are returned , that is from a man on the ground at Dover AFB . And the press is not allowed in and they do not scream bloody murder about that .........but tell them they can not take a picture of a movie star and listen to them howl .............Give these men that have given all they have the honor they so richly deserve .........The DEBT that is owed to these men can never be repaid , so at least give them thier just due and Honor them and hold them in your hearts . Never forget them even if you never meet a single one of them .
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6154 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 18th, 2008 07:51 pm |
|
I notice that you didn't quote the General on his early warning report card on Iraq, in that he said that the progress the Iraqis have made in response to the surge was not acceptable to anyone. I do worry that the sacrifices our Soldiers have been made will be in vain...but if they have not made the progress that everyone said was needed as the surge starts to draw down (and violence may be inching up...probably not a coincidence)...what do we do next? We've shot our load with the surge, and it did not achieve the strategic results that it had to do.
What is next?
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1311 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 18th, 2008 05:09 pm |
|
| Even though there have been very significant successes in the reduction of violence in Iraq, General Petraeus said that the situation there is "both tenuous and revcersable." There is no doubt that al Qaeda has not yet been defeated and that they are attempting to reestablish their influence and control in the areas that our military has cleared. Fred, you may be familiar with Anbar Provence which is an area that US forces are really trying to hold on to. The same thing is happening in Baghdad neighborhoods. They are also a presence in Mosul and Ninewa provences. I also read that the Taliban and al Qaeda are trying to make gains in Afghanistan. This is going to be a tough nut for anyone who ascends to the presidency. With more coalition forces withdrawing their troops I don't expect we can hold the ground by ourselves. The Dems and Repubs have polar opposite positions on how to continue and which course to pursue. Obama says that he'll withdraw troops immediately. Hillary says pretty much the same thing. McCain says that he "will defend the decision to destroy Saddam Hussein's regime." The Oval Office may not be such a great place to be in the coming years.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6154 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 13th, 2008 12:38 pm |
|
Okay...why?
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/30172.html
Rather than posting the report online and making officials available to discuss it, as had been planned, the U.S. Joint Forces Command said it would mail copies of the document to reporters — if they asked for it. The report won't be posted on the Internet...
First, it is probably because it contains inconvient truths about Iraq, but what does this really do, other then keep it off the Internet for a few extra days...and possibly avoiding people like me quoting a DoD web site when we say things like...
....that while Saddam sponsored terrorism, particularly against opponents of his regime and against Israel, there was no evidence of an al Qaida link.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6154 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 4th, 2008 03:10 pm |
|
I notice you didn't answer the question I posed about the success of the surge, Vinnie.
Many bills are proposed for a variety of reasons, including ones that sponsors know that have no possibility of passing. This one is there for a very simple reason...to keep the issue at the forefront, and to force discussion on alternatives. I have no doubt that there are a very few Dems who want us out yesterday; I also know that the vast majority know that we will be there for a long time, and it is only what our mission, what the composition, and how much we make the Iraqis do that is the real discussion.
I will pretty much tell you that even if McCain wins, we will start discussing plans on the drawdown of troops. I didn't post it, but the Army Chief of Staff has said that the current optempo is not supportable, so we have to make changes. If I was the suspicious type, I would say that the additional "post surge" surge that will remain beyond the summer is in hope that the additional troops can keep a lid on the pot until after our elections....
But there is hope from Iraq, and it comes from where it needs to...the Iraqis...basically, they are getting tired of listening to their clerics.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/world/middleeast/04youth.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Last edited on Tue Mar 4th, 2008 03:20 pm by Fred
|
Vindicator
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 3rd, 2008 03:36 pm |
|
Attempting to put good news from Iraq on the front page while calling the Surrendercrats’ bluff in the process, Senate Republicans on Tuesday helped advance a Democrat bill to cut off funding for the war in Iraq and withdraw the troops within 120 days. By opening the bill to debate, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said it would allow Republicans to note the “extraordinary progress that’s been made in Iraq over the last six months, not only on the military side, but also with civilian reconciliation beginning to finally take hold in the country.”
The move to open debate on the Democrats’ proposed surrender appeared to have caught Democrat leaders snoozing. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who last year said such things as “This surge is a bad idea” and “This war is lost,” was apparently hoping the Senate would start working on a mortgage bailout, expecting Republicans to remain firmly opposed to debating the withdrawal plan. Looks like the mortgage crisis will have to wait while Congress does its actual job of handling national security. While there is little chance the Democrats’ bill will actually pass, or even come to a vote, it will be enjoyable to watch the defeatists try to talk down the successes of our troops since the surge began one year ago.
(From The Patriot Post)
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6154 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 27th, 2008 01:14 pm |
|
If the surge was so successful....why, at the end of it, will we have 8,000 more troops there then when we started?
I'm not saying that the surge was not the last and best hope for a positive outcome...I am saying that the strategy had a limited chance of success....AND this is what many military leaders were saying, and the outcomes that the President said HAD to be a result of the surge did not happen.
So....if the President's measures of success for the surge are not met, and we will have more troops at the end of it then before we started.......how can you say that this was a successful strategy? Sure, a few things got done....but no where near the committment of our Soldiers and Marines justified.
|
Newshound
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 927 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 27th, 2008 12:59 pm |
|
Senate to Vote on Anti-War Bills; Pelosi Blasts Surge Strategy
(CNSNews.com) - Senate Democrats are planning a vote Tuesday on two anti-war bills, both leftovers from last year. And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi complained on Monday that the troop surge in Iraq is not ending as promised...
MoveOn.org and Other Liberals Launch Campaign to End Iraq War
(CNSNews.com) - Liberal activist groups MoveOn.org, USAction, Americans United for Change, VoteVets, and the Service Employees International Union, along with former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards and his wife, joined forces Monday, announcing a $20-million public awareness and lobbying campaign to promote a perceived link between the war in Iraq and a receding U.S. economy...
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6154 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 25th, 2008 12:45 pm |
|
Interesting poll done by the Military Times, the publishers of weekly newspapers that are service specific (Army Times, Navy Times, etc.). Somewhat relevant, in that the polls can track attitudes about the wars over the past couple of years.
http://www.militarycity.com/polls/
|
Newshound
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 927 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 20th, 2008 07:46 pm |
|
This week’s “Hanoi Jane” Award:
“I feel at great pain when the spotlight is on the death of 4,000 American soldiers, while 600,000 Iraqi deaths are ignored. War is not a movie, it is a tragedy of dead bodies, victims, the disabled, orphans, widows and the displaced.” —
(actress Sharon Stone in an interview with the Arab newspaper, Al-Hayat)
Note: The 600,000 figure, put out by anti-war leftists, has long been discredited.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6154 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 18th, 2008 11:59 am |
|
Well....the surge was supposed to have very specific and concrete outcomes. What the Iraqis have done is knocked out about 4 out of the dozen or so things that we expected them to do in return for our additional commitment, and they were the relatively "easy" ones. It is the equivalent of a kid answering a few T/F questions on a test, and not even trying the multiple choice or essay ones.
Whether or not 4 out of the 12 essential tasks there were supposed to get done (or even if they get a few more done over the next couple of months) is passing really isn't the issue. I tend to think that it, coupled with a change in strategy by Petrius of getting Soldier and Marines closer to the population instead of clustered in protected FOBs and LSAs, was probably one of the last and best options.
There are three levels of "success" in the military....tactical, which is the boots on the ground, take the hill kind of success. We've really not been challenged in that area for a long time. The next level is operational, which is the ability to manage and coordinate the individual tacatical moves towards the means of a larger area. Again, we are pretty good at this.
It is the strategic level, that ability that requires diplomatic, informational, economic, and military might to achieve our ends, that is the most important. Part of the problem is that the strategic goals in Iraq were never really clear at the beginning, or were stated in operational or tactical terms, ignoring or wishing away the strategic impact of what they did. Strategic goals and wins are more difficult...kicking down a door and capturing a bad guy is relatively easy, but getting that family to turn away from those who want them to do bad is the tough part.
We're in the position where we all, except the Neocons like Bill Krystol, see the bigger issues with Iraq. Any success we have will have to be balanced against the cost and impact of what we've already done. I think both sides are praying for that moment of success that we can use to start drawing down our troops, regardless of whether or not our goals have been achieved...the Repubs to avoid being tapped with the "Vietnam Syndrome" and the Dems because they've staked a lot on starting the drawdown.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1311 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 15th, 2008 11:27 pm |
|
Yeah, and we can add this Alpha Jackass’ award to:
“The gains [in Iraq] have not produced the desired effect, which is the reconciliation of Iraq. This is a failure. This is a failure! The troops have succeeded. God bless them. We owe them the greatest debt of gratitude, the sacrifice, their patriotism, and for their courage, and to their families as well. This is a disaster, and we cannot perpetuate it.”
Spoken by none other than House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who, uh, supports the troops, God bless them!
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6154 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 12th, 2008 12:37 pm |
|
I pulled this topic from the bottom of the pile....
Interesting that the signals are that we are going to maintain a set force after the surge is finished and we return to the "normal" levels.
I think the first thing is that it is to keep down expectations. Yes, perhaps the point of the surge was to allow the Iraqis to take charge and allow us to start an actual drawdown of our own....but if we say we are not sure, it makes any cuts that much more better.
I also don't think that it is that odd, either. Normal rotations of troops are in the fall and winter to give them some time to acclimate to the weather (AF troops generally don't fall under that, as they tend to have shorter but more frequent tours). What they might be planning is to keep the troops that are there for the normal tour, and if the situation warrants it, you might see more troops come home (or announcements of a drawdown) than are headed over in the September-October timeframe.......just in time for elections, perhaps?
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6154 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 19th, 2007 10:24 am |
|
A few articles caught my eye about Iraq.....
The UN helped negotiate a compromise that delayed what would be a contentuous vote in Kirkuk. What is good about this is that we got someone else to help out in the dipolmacy, AND we got the Iraqi sides to compromise, a very difficult thing to do..especially when we are talking oil revenues.
On another issue, the presidential campaign has tended to overwhelm all other news, including Iraq. The result of less coverage, some speculate, is a slight uptick of support for the war.
The military report provided a very measured report on progress. When they refer to "tactical and operational success" it is as important to realize what they are leaving off, adn that is the strategic success. The surge provides for some progress (such as it is in Iraq) as in the first item I have listed above, but the government of Iraq isn't there yet. As the surge begins to draw down, we have to hope that we've made enough progress to kick start them towards progress. I'm not optomistic, and I don't think if it suceeds it will be what we would have wanted, but if it gets us out of there, it is a good thing.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6154 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 3rd, 2007 04:00 pm |
|
davidlanderson wrote: The surge has worked despite the best predictions of some very knowledgeable people in this forum. The politics in Iraq is behind in progress. It does not mean that they have totally failed. Why this rush to a defeatist mentality? Can't we have a little faith?
I am not sure what you want me to have faith in.
The surge was not an action in and of itself..it was a limited term action (limited not by political will, but by personnel limitations in the military) that was to produce some given actions by a certain date. The fact that deaths are down is nice, but the political process was the end to the means. The length and size of the surge was dictated by the needs of the size of future deployments, and we can't extend it without stressing the military even more.
Now, you can try to assume that all we need to do is give the Iraqis more time at this strength level, which I think could theoretically work IF we could find the troops to do this.
So, I guess what you want me to have faith in is that as the surge draws to a close, the relative calm will continue...that Al Sadr will keep his troops down, and that the Shi'ites don't break out in civil war. I think it is possible, at least in the short term...meaning I think that for a few months after the surge, the violence may stay down. The problems of Iraq, however, are deep-seated, and unless they are resolved by the Iraqis, they will simmer and explode out at some point.
|
davidlanderson
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 528 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 3rd, 2007 05:20 am |
|
| The surge has worked despite the best predictions of some very knowledgeable people in this forum. The politics in Iraq is behind in progress. It does not mean that they have totally failed. Why this rush to a defeatist mentality? Can't we have a little faith?
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6154 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 2nd, 2007 05:22 pm |
|
If you believe that the wingers aren't claiming this for vindication for any and all things Bush....I congratulate you for not reading the right wing blogs. If you are reading people like George Will, you probably aren't seeing this kind of revisionist line.
There are many reasons for the downturn in violence, and IF a thoughtful right winger ackowledges that Al Sadr's decision to stand down his troops and the ethnic cleansing of the neighborhoods that have occured might have some impact on the decline in violence, perhaps we can go forward with this issue. If you want to stick to three word slogans, the left will continue to beat these bleatings back with facts.
The Iraqis have a very small window, and I think it is beginning to close. If they can take advantage of it, they can reclaim their country, get things going, and we can get out of there (or not, if we opt to keep a few bases over there for strategic purposes....not exactly a bad idea).
I think that what will be the biggest contributor to the cluster-fruck that is Iraq is that there never was a clear vision of what the end state was going to be. I DO believe that they thought the post-Iraq occupation was going to be a piece of cake, and that the residents were just itching to elect a relatively moderate leader...and that they were going to be eternally grateful to us for releasing them from Saddam, with us rebuilding their country being paid for with the profits from their sale of oil to us...a potential win-win for both sides. I understand this vision, but am not sure it was feasible...but the lack of planning doomed even this pipe-dream scenario.
Maybe we do need to throw out the expectations, and figure out what exactly we want and can get out of the situation....we are at a point in time that the next President really has to start articulating it, not in terms of "terra", but what our end state in Iraq is going to be. All the major candidates acknowedge we are going to be in Iraq for a while...and all candidates acknowledge we want to leave there at some point in time. We have to know what they see as success to measure wheter the additional expense it will take is worth it.
|
no one else
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 347 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 2nd, 2007 01:04 pm |
|
Fred wrote: What righties want is vindication that all the mistakes, all the errors in judgement, all the strategic miscues be brushed aside with the tactical success of the surge. Don't you think that when you hear the right wing talking heads that somehow they equate this success as "proof" that they, and GWB were right about everything? I mean, hey...it may still work, but it doesn't wipe away several years of incompetence...or does it to right wingers?
No it doesn't and I don't hear the "right wingers" claim anything as proof of Bush's strategy. What I do hear is exactly what you (and others in this forum) state is that politically, there has NOT been enough progress but militarily there have been great strides. As a conservative (but not necessarily a Republican) I hold this president at fault for many things and give him credit for very few. One thing I can give him credit for is not throwing up his hands in surrender. I would hope that the Iraqis succeed but the left wingers do not, elsewise they would be extolling more confidence.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6154 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 2nd, 2007 12:35 pm |
|
Go for what?
The goals announced for the surge were there for a very specific purpose...that the surge was pulling troops out of their normal Iraqi rotation. We have started ending it (a brigade that was part of the troop increased started coming home last week), not because of success, or because of any funding issue, but the reality that we can't maintain that number of troops there and plan for future "normal" rotations.
So let's celebrate that the troops did get done militarily what they set out to do...to provide a temporary window of safety for the Iraqi government to get their stuff together. We did our job, but they did not do theirs.
The greatest fear (from both sides) is that the Iraqis don't take advantage of us going "all in" with all of our resources to make serious in-roads to their problems. If they haven't made enough progress, one might well see the problems creeping back up as the troop strength decreases.
Have they made enough progress in their areas to keep things better as we draw down to pre-surge levels? I don't know....it is possible, and they do have a few more months to take control, but their past history does not make this feasable.
What righties want is vindication that all the mistakes, all the errors in judgement, all the strategic miscues be brushed aside with the tactical success of the surge. Don't you think that when you hear the right wing talking heads that somehow they equate this success as "proof" that they, and GWB were right about everything? I mean, hey...it may still work, but it doesn't wipe away several years of incompetence...or does it to right wingers?
|
Newshound
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 927 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 1st, 2007 07:14 pm |
|
“We can’t win militarily.” —Rep. Fightin’ John Murtha (D-PA)
“The best way to achieve a political solution in Iraq is to withdraw our forces.” —Demo presidential candidate Bill Richardson
“The pessimists and defeatists who declared the surge doomed and said we were digging ourselves into a deeper hole have been proven wrong. The story of Iraq now is that terrorists have been killed, captured or driven out of territory retaken and cleansed by American and Iraqi forces—a coalition that has stabilized much of the country.” —Donald Lambro
“Leaders of the Democratic Party are unwilling to celebrate because they have invested all their political capital in the notion that America isn’t winning, can’t win and must not win. If voters were to embrace victory and not defeat, they would likely reject the Democratic presidential nominee, if only for demonstrating poor judgment.” —Cal Thomas
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1311 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 1st, 2007 05:51 pm |
|
| Gee whizz, Fred. As far as I can read it I do believe that they were all referring to the MILITARY aspect of what the the surge was supposed to accomplish, except for one statememnt where it was pointed out that JP agreed that politically it wasn't working so good. Now that things seem to be on the improvment side, isn't it worth a shot or two to try to extend success a bit further? At this point, why not go for it?
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6154 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 1st, 2007 12:24 pm |
|
Jurisprudence wrote: I must beg to differ with you, Fred. There were those that said that the surge will have NO effect, militarily or otherwise. Forinstance, in April of this year, Harry Reid said: "This war is lost, and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq."
Then we have Nancy pelosi who said: "The escalation (surge) has failed to produce the intended results." June 13, 2007 (I can agree that it did not produce the political results enough but militarily it appears to be a success, for now anyway.)
Dick Durban commented: "By carefully manipulating the statistics, the Bush-Petraeus report will try to pursuade us that violence in IOraq is decreasing and thus the surge is working. Even if the figures were right, the conclusion is wrong."
James Webb said on July 9, 2007, "I don't care what the report says next week, I don't care what the report says next September."
Chris Dodd: "A surge of American troops will do nothing." December 26, 2006
Dianne Feinstein: "Today, a majority of the Senate sees that the surge is not working..Do we change course now or do we wait until September? July 17, 2007
Bill Richardson: "The surge has led to nothing but a surge in ASmericans dying." June 19, 2007
There are many more negatives about the surge, both militarily as well as politically.
Italics=mine.
I am sorry, but if the surge does not produce the political results that the President said was the purpose behind it, these quotes will be accurate. Is there a bit of hyperbole to their comments....yes, but I also suspect that you are being somewhat selective of their sentences. I suspect that if you included the entire paragraph of what they said, the picture would be a little bit different.
|
CR Voter
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 30th, 2007 09:36 pm |
|
| Careful JP, Fred ate a big bowl of Liberal O's with vinegar on them this week. He's not himself.
|
Jurisprudence
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 794 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 30th, 2007 09:32 pm |
|
I must beg to differ with you, Fred. There were those that said that the surge will have NO effect, militarily or otherwise. Forinstance, in April of this year, Harry Reid said: "This war is lost, and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq."
Then we have Nancy pelosi who said: "The escalation (surge) has failed to produce the intended results." June 13, 2007 (I can agree that it did not produce the political results enough but militarily it appears to be a success, for now anyway.)
Dick Durban commented: "By carefully manipulating the statistics, the Bush-Petraeus report will try to pursuade us that violence in IOraq is decreasing and thus the surge is working. Even if the figures were right, the conclusion is wrong."
James Webb said on July 9, 2007, "I don't care what the report says next week, I don't care what the report says next September."
Chris Dodd: "A surge of American troops will do nothing." December 26, 2006
Dianne Feinstein: "Today, a majority of the Senate sees that the surge is not working..Do we change course now or do we wait until September? July 17, 2007
Bill Richardson: "The surge has led to nothing but a surge in ASmericans dying." June 19, 2007
There are many more negatives about the surge, both militarily as well as politically.
Italics=mine.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6154 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 30th, 2007 07:14 pm |
|
Oh, Jeez.
Again....the surge is working at the tactical level. NO ONE SAID IT WOULD NOT HAVE AN EFFECT. What he, and others have said, is that it was unlikely to cause the Iraqi government to make the changes that President Bush said was the point of the surge.
|
bbd
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 736 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 30th, 2007 05:59 pm |
|
THE SURGE IS WORKING!!
So says John Murtha
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/7109.html
The change in mood perceived by Democratic lawmakers comes as one of Congress’ most vocal war critics, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), returned from a trip to Iraq and told reporters Thursday that “the surge is working” to improve security, even though the central government in Baghdad remains “dysfunctional.”
Wonder what happened to his "we have lost the war" statement
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6154 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 26th, 2007 10:31 pm |
|
Thanks for making my point, Vinnie.
The point isn't whether or not additional troops are having an effect, which is the strawman that right wingers want to set up...Of course they are, and anyone (and there are those on the board who fall into this catagory) that thinks Dems said this are idiots.
The surge is ending, and Iraq right now is better off then before the surge, but it hasn't gotten anything done that the surge was supposed to get done. There has been some minimal progress on a few items (the Ba'athist reintegration plan was discussed, although it has virtually no chance of getting passed anytime soon).
Now, if the surge draws down and Iraq is marginally better in terms of relative violence, is it a success? I'm sorry, but unless the strategic goals that sent our Soldiers and Marines into combat that made this year the deadliest one in Iraq are achieved it is a strategic failure. Non-military types don't see (or don't want to see) that one can have tactical and operational success without lasting means, but it is very possible, and very common in war.
The time is ticking for Iraqis, as the drawdown of the surge begins this week. They have to step it up, they have to keep things under control, and they have to make progress. If they do, we can salvage something out of this, even it is not the President's reputation.....if they don't, the war is truly lost.
|
Vindicator
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 26th, 2007 09:39 pm |
|
Fred wrote: I say again...NO ONE said that the surge would not have some effect. What they said was that it would not have an impact on the strategic goals of the administration.
Hey, I'll make it extremely easy for you to prove I am wrong. Go through the statments of the most anti-war Democrat we have running...Dennis Kuchinich (who does NOT represent the majority of Dems)...and find where he said it would not have some effect. I can't recall anytime Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, Kennedy and Company have said that it would have any effect at all. Remember that Democrats were indoctrinated to believe that the "war is lost." And how about those Democrats who are not running? Dick Durbin and the dilly dingbats?
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6154 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 26th, 2007 07:52 pm |
|
I say again...NO ONE said that the surge would not have some effect. What they said was that it would not have an impact on the strategic goals of the administration.
Hey, I'll make it extremely easy for you to prove I am wrong. Go through the statments of the most anti-war Democrat we have running...Dennis Kuchinich (who does NOT represent the majority of Dems)...and find where he said it would not have some effect. He has very strong opinions on why he thinks the administration did it, and that it would not work to achieve it, but I do not think you will find where he said it would not have an effect.
You probably don't remember it, or never read it on the right wing sites you get your information, but the Joint Chiefs of Staff leaked that they unanimously disagreed with the surge for roughly the same exact reasons.
Last edited on Mon Nov 26th, 2007 08:03 pm by Fred
|
Newshound
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 927 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 26th, 2007 06:57 pm |
|
No one said? All of the Pablum pukers were saying it all along and now that there may be even a slight chance of coming out of this clean, they are changing their tunes, or at least some of them are.
Democrat Says Declining Casualties in Iraq is Not Progress
(CNSNews.com) - New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democratic presidential candidate, said Sunday that the decline in U.S. casualties in Iraq -- which has accompanied the increase in U.S. troops in that country -- is not a sign of progress...
**
Donald Lambro: Dems in Denial Over Iraq Recovery
The significant decline of violence in Iraq is well documented: fewer insurgent attacks, far less roadside bombs, fewer U.S. casualties and little or no sectarian warfare.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6154 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 26th, 2007 04:35 pm |
|
Again, for the umpteenth time, wingers (that means you, Bix)...
NO ONE said that the additional troops would not have an impact on security...what those who were wary of the surge said was that it probably would not help achieve the strategic goals set forth by the administration.
Now, it either did achieve all of these goals (or some of them) or it did not. The fact that neighborhoods are more secure (albeit now more segregated then ever before, as the Sunnis and Shiites have killed/forced anyone not of their religion out of their areas).
Simple request, really....go back, find out what strategic goals were the goals of the surge, and say what progress has been made on them.
Don't you think you have to at least look at the specific reasons given for the surge to see if the surge was successful?
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1311 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 26th, 2007 04:19 pm |
|
NYT Bows to Reality: "Baghdad Starts to Exhale as Security Improves"
The Times' liberal readership surely got indigestion over Tuesday's lead story from Baghdad by Damien Cave and Alissa Rubin, "Baghdad Starts to Exhale as Security Improves." It's even accompanied by three photos of normal life in the Iraqi capital.
And yes, this is the same paper that declared less than a month ago, in the lead sentence to a lead editorial: "The news out of Iraq just keeps getting worse."
But on Tuesday the Times made a public bow to reality, admitting:
"The security improvements in most neighborhoods are real. Days now pass without a car bomb, after a high of 44 in the city in February. The number of bodies appearing on Baghdad's streets has plummeted to about 5 a day, from as many as 35 eight months ago, and suicide bombings across Iraq fell to 16 in October, half the number of last summer and down sharply from a recent peak of 59 in March, the American military says.
"As a result, for the first time in nearly two years, people are moving with freedom around much of this city. In more than 50 interviews across Baghdad, it became clear that while there were still no-go zones, more Iraqis now drive between Sunni and Shiite areas for work, shopping or school, a few even after dark. In the most stable neighborhoods of Baghdad, some secular women are also dressing as they wish. Wedding bands are playing in public again, and at a handful of once shuttered liquor stores customers now line up outside in a collective rebuke to religious vigilantes from the Shiite Mahdi Army.
"Iraqis are clearly surprised and relieved to see commerce and movement finally increase, five months after an extra 30,000 American troops arrived in the country. But the depth and sustainability of the changes remain open to question."
To be sure, the article has plenty of anecdotes suggesting people still live in fear in Baghdad, and emphasized the incomplete nature of the gains.
"By one revealing measure of security -- whether people who fled their home have returned -- the gains are still limited. About 20,000 Iraqis have gone back to their Baghdad homes, a fraction of the more than 4 million who fled nationwide, and the 1.4 million people in Baghdad who are still internally displaced, according to a recent Iraqi Red Crescent Society survey."
Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters wrote:
"Let's put the Times report into context. Just two months ago, the paper gave MoveOn a price break to run an ad that accused General David Petraeus of treason and perjury even before he testified about the security improvements. The editorial board called Petraeus' testimony 'empty calories' and complained of his 'broken promises and false claims of success' and asserted that Petraeus had not given an 'honest accounting' in his Congressional briefings.
"The Times waited until the success of Petraeus could no longer be denied to publish the truth. With every other news agency in the world reporting on the drop in violence, the rise in commerce, the flight of the militias even from Baghdad, and the unifying efforts such as the rebuilding of St. John's Catholic Church in the heart of the capital, the Times has no other choice but to rescue its credibility with an acknowledgment of reality. Even then, they use the hoary device of individual anecdotes to temper the news, as if to assert that even success cannot be enjoyed if even one individual feels fear of entering a specific neighborhood.
"One wonders how many Times execs wander freely through the Bronx at night, or even in the daytime."
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6154 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 26th, 2007 10:17 am |
|
It peaked during the summer, actually, and is now in it's first phase of drawing down, with the one brigade beginning to leave this week...
http://www.newsweek.com/id/72152
The problem, HB, isn't that deaths are down (although this year will go down as the deadliest for Americans in Iraq). That is good...the problem is that we don't (or shouldn't) deploy more troops to simply protect those that are there, but rather for a larger, more strategic aim.
One of the things we wanted was an oil revenue sharing plan. Now, I know there are some who would claim this was for the benefit of our oil companies, but even if that is true, it is not the main reason we wanted it. We wanted this at a strategic level because we believe that if there is a fair, agreed upon process where all the regions of Iraq share in the one thing that can make them money, they will stop and work together instead of being afraid of being shut out. We deployed troops (a tactical move) to give them some time and space to feel comfortable about the situation (an operational move) to actually do something about it.
What I hope you see is that WE were successful in getting the means in place to accomplish the task, but this goal (and others, all of which have the same overarching requirement to make Iraq a success), was not accomplished. I have no problem redefining the strategic goals, but you can't degrade that to "less troops were killed". Great, but how does that bring Iraq any closer to being on it's own?
Perhaps the peace, brought on by the troop surge as much as the ethnic cleansing of many of the neighborhood, can be kept by some sort of partioning, which is somewhat responsible for the decrease in violence now. I hope this is the case; the worst case is that the violence decreased because the fighters laid low while we were at our peak, knowing we would eventually have to bring the additional fighters home.
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 26th, 2007 01:32 am |
|
Perhaps we have a different definition of 'some time ago'. The 5 combat brigade 'surge' started in February 07 was completed in early September 07 according to what I read. The 20,000 troops somehow expanded to 30,000 [perhaps because of the support personnel assigned??]. After reaching that peak we are now starting to draw down from 20 combat brigades to 19 with as the 3rd Brigade of the First Cav. heads home next month. The absolute number of our people over there still seems to be going up and isn't posed to drop until early next year but more of them will be non-combat groups [if there is such a thing in that country].
As to the results achieved compared to the January speeches and expectations, I'd have no problem with saying the goals have changed or that we are still disgusted that the Iraqis are almost as inept at governement as the US Senate . The Iraqis are probably watching Senator Webb 'open' the Senate for 'business' each day for 3 minutes while an empty chamber looks on and wonder aloud at why we are bitching at them for being a bunch of bunglers.
The main solace I get out of the situation over there now is that we are taking far fewer killed and wounded and , at least in the field, the Iraqi army and police are stepping up , sometimes unevenly, but better than they have been before. If the surge accomplished that, it was a good thing.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6154 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 12:34 pm |
|
No, HB, the surge level was reached some time ago. The surge level actually now is going to start dropping, as the "surge" was taken out of hide of troops needed for future rotations...and if we continued, we would endanger future rotations. No one is pushing for this; it was the plan all along, and we don't have enough troops to maintain it, even if we wanted to.
You miss the point, which is that our tactical advantages are not accomplishing what the strategic intent of the surge was. NO ONE ever said that putting the troops into place would not have an effect; what they said was that putting the troops into place would not accomplish the goals that were laid out for it....and they have been proven correct.
Now, it might just go to prove that we still don't understand the people of the area. IN any case, I have no problem calling the surge a victory IF the righties acknowledge that we have moved to goal posts once again....If we haven't, it should be pretty easy for you to go back to the President's speech back in January and tell me which of the original goals HE specifically laid out that would define the success of the surge have been met.....I don't think that is asking too much, is it?
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 04:40 am |
|
| Isn't it true that they have just reached the troop level that was established for the surge? Don't know why it took so long, but we might want to recognize the strategic or tactical (or whatever terms you care to use) goals are being met with varying degrees of success, as you point out. So why do your loyal Democrat Congressmen want so badly for all that to stop by continually backstabbing the effort?
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6154 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 03:32 am |
|
Interesting...not reaching any progress on the core issues that were established for the surge, so it looks like they are establishing new, more easily obtainable goals...
Instead, administration officials say they are focusing their immediate efforts on several more limited but achievable goals in the hope of convincing Iraqis, foreign governments and Americans that progress is being made toward the political breakthroughs that the military campaign of the past 10 months was supposed to promote.
The short-term American targets include passage of a $48 billion Iraqi budget, something the Iraqis say they are on their way to doing anyway; renewing the United Nations mandate that authorizes an American presence in the country, which the Iraqis have done repeatedly before; and passing legislation to allow thousands of Baath Party members from Saddam Hussein’s era to rejoin the government. A senior Bush administration official described that goal as largely symbolic since rehirings have been quietly taking place already.
Now....I don't think resetting goals based upon the tactical success is a bad idea...I just want the right wingers to acknowledge that this is being done. The tactical successes may not be in support of the strategic goals, but they are achieving some results....now, whether they are enough, or going to achieve lasting results, is another thign.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6154 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 16th, 2007 10:33 am |
|
Two articles (one on the Army's Command and General Staff College, and one opinon piece signed by 12 former captains) for your reading pleasure.
The 'Times piece is personally interesting, as it accurately reflects my impression of the course and the free thinking and discussion that goes on there....great for those of you who think that the military is, or should be, a bunch of automatons who don't have any independent thoughts.
The post editorial is reflective of some of this thinking, but with some more pointed criticism of the military leadership.....and their opinion that the only way to suceed in Iraq is with much more American troops via the draft.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/13/us/13cnd-army.html?hp
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/15/AR2007101500841.html
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6154 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 8th, 2007 07:29 pm |
|
Are you confusing tactical successes with strategic goals?
Remember, waaaay back in January? The whole point of the surge was to give the Iraqis time to get their stuff together? Remember, the whole "breathing room" thing that came from the President's mouth himself? Maybe, instead, you remember Sen. Lindsey Graham saying that a major breakthrough was weeks away?
Oops.
The Iraqis themselves have said said it ain't going to happen.....
"I don't think there is something called reconciliation, and there will be no reconciliation as such," said Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih, a Kurd. "To me, it is a very inaccurate term. This is a struggle about power."
Actually, what one Shiite said makes sense, from the Iraqi standpoint, if not from the people who are trying to get them to get along.....
Humam Hamoudi, a prominent Shiite cleric and parliament member, said any future reconciliation would emerge naturally from an efficient, fair government, not through short-term political engineering among Sunnis and Shiites.
"Reconciliation should be a result and not a goal by itself," he said. "You should create the atmosphere for correct relationships, and not wave slogans that 'I want to reconcile with you.' "
And remember, "future" has a much longer timeframe for them then it does us.
|
Newshound
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 927 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 8th, 2007 07:12 pm |
|
Life with the Marines in Ramadi
A vivid picture of how Iraq is being slowly transformed
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58017
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6154 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 25th, 2007 02:20 pm |
|
When C&W starts deserting you.....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/23/wus123.xml
Although I agree that Toby Keith is probably a bit opportunistic at this point...is a duet with Maines next for him?
|
Lyle Jr.
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 21st, 2007 12:15 am |
|
You are correct Fred, but pulling back to the borders and watching the ensuing free-for-all is not going to work either.
To quote a revered figure, "Captain the matter, anti-matter can't hold much longer"
Now if we could find a Congress that stops pissing off the Adininstration, and vice versa, we might make some progress.
The onus is on the majority to extend the olive branch.
In the meanwhile Gen. Petraeus and the Coalition troops are holding the umbrella as steady as possible.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6154 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 21st, 2007 12:06 am |
|
Bixby wrote: “One of most realistic of all the insightful statements by General Petraeus was that ‘We are not going to kill our way’ out of the problems in Iraq. There has never been a moment when anyone in Congress, the White House, or the military has ever advocated anything other than getting out when the time is right. All the arguments, the rhetoric, and the shouting is about when is the time right. Nobody thinks American troops have to stay in Iraq until the last terrorist is killed or driven out of the country. It is a question of reaching the point where the Iraqis themselves can deal with the terrorist and other problems of their country without American troops. That is the direction in which the Iraqis seem to be moving already.” —Thomas Sowell
One of the most realistic statements by the general is when he said
“’Any student of history recognizes that there is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq,’” Army Gen. David H. Petraeus said at his first news conference since assuming command last month.
“Political negotiations were vital and would require reaching out to ‘some of those who have felt the new Iraq did not have a place for them,’ Petraeus said. ‘Military action is necessary to help improve security but it is not sufficient.’”
Last edited on Fri Sep 21st, 2007 12:06 am by Fred
|
Lyle Jr.
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
| |