Iraq Surge Success

[DJ09]

I'm sure that you liberals out there are just inflamed at the subject title of this thread.  But you can just go cry to hillary clinton and "Slow-bleed" Murtha about it.  The fact is that the War in Iraq is succeding, despite the setbacks, our troops have made tremendous progress.  They have done some much for their country and Iraq.  We should be forever grateful!

According to the U.S. central command, Coalition forces have:

6/6/07:
-Weapons Cache destroyed near Baghdad
-Six suspected Terrorist detained, One Killed
-Iraqi Army dismantles Car Bomb
- An Al-Qaeda Leader Killed

6/5/07:
-17 Al-Qaeda captured
- Four suspected insurgents killed

**Only a small portion of the sucess across Iraq ( Sucess like how 3 more provinces were handed over two weeks ago, and 2 more are ready)

"Often times the daily accomplishments of what the troops are doing on the ground gets overshadowed by sensational attacks committed by the enemy."- General Petraeus

According to Company B, 2nd Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment.

“It’s night and day from when we got here,” he said.

“I know that we’ve made a difference and made this area safer. Every time I go out, people tell me that,” said Spc. Herrick Lidstone, of Littleton, Colo., a radio operator with Bravo Company.

To all you liberals out there who don't support this war, Its time you start getting behind the sucess.  Its time that you get behind our troops and the mission over there.  Defending freedom here AND ABROAD is vital to our national interest.  If we pull out now, thousands (if not tens of thousands) of our troops will be killed as we retreat.  Iraq would fall into utter chaos, and Iraq would crumble under the evil countries that surround it.

Support our boys over there! They are doin' an amazing job, and I am forever grateful!! So should you!

[CultureKing]

Sorry, but I think you may be one of the most disillusioned people I have ever seen.
Oh, and look I can post articles to help what I think is happening too,  this coming from a credible news source (the New York Times):

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/04/world/middleeast/04surge.html?pagewanted=3&n=Top%2fNews%2fWorld%2fCountries%20and%20Territories%2fIraq&_r=1

It talks about how the military has fallen much short of its goal because of the increase in casualties, the increase in sectarian violence, and the fact that not even 1/3 of the neighborhoods in Baghdad have been brought under control. At the moment the surge isn't producing what was promised. That said I am willing to wait to pass judgement on the plan until September when we will be able to really see if the surge has been a failure or a sucess and I still support the troops while at the same time maintaining that the war needs to be ended, and why so we CAN protect the troops by taking them out of an endless and purposeless war. Basically be realistic, the situation is not going to get much better.

[DJ09]

You call me dillusional, but you claim that the New York Times is more of a credible source than the United States Central Command.  You're saying that reporters safe over hear in Washington & N.Y.C. are more reliable sources than the people that are actually on the ground fighting this war.  The New York Times wants defeat because all the report on is the the setbacks.  The liberal media only reports the attacks, and never the achievements.

Secondly, I recognize that there are setbacks and that this war will be difficult.  But saying that this war isn't going to get better is demeaning to our troops on the ground.  You are telling them that they will never achieve victory.  When in fact the have made monumental strides toward success.

I don't think you understand the importance of this war.  After 9/11 we realized that we can not let threats go unnoticed.  We went into Iraq because it threatened our allies and our own national interest.  Now that we are in there we must defend Iraq from surrounding enemies like Iran and Syria.  We cannot let Iraq dissolve into utter chaos (which would happen if we leave).  We must succeed... we can NOT retreat. 

[CultureKing]

You call me dillusional, but you claim that the New York Times is more of a credible source than the United States Central Command.  You're saying that reporters safe over hear in Washington & N.Y.C. are more reliable sources than the people that are actually on the ground fighting this war.  The New York Times wants defeat because all the report on is the the setbacks.  The liberal media only reports the attacks, and never the achievements.

Secondly, I recognize that there are setbacks and that this war will be difficult.  But saying that this war isn't going to get better is demeaning to our troops on the ground.  You are telling them that they will never achieve victory.  When in fact the have made monumental strides toward success.

I don't think you understand the importance of this war.  After 9/11 we realized that we can not let threats go unnoticed.  We went into Iraq because it threatened our allies and our own national interest.  Now that we are in there we must defend Iraq from surrounding enemies like Iran and Syria.  We cannot let Iraq dissolve into utter chaos (which would happen if we leave).  We must succeed... we can NOT retreat. 

You realize of course that 9/11 and Iraq are completely unrelated right?
Oh and on the sources thing, you are getting info from one of the combatants, one that is trying to win so of course they are going to spin the news to their advantage, if you want more sources and stories showing the weakness of the surge here are a few:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6706481.stm

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118056694765119209-_Ob9W9Zuak9ratIbzw_LYtyIiVE_20070630.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

http://houseoflabor.tpmcafe.com/blog/deanie_mills/2007/jun/06/what_the_troops_really_think_voices_from_iraq

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070515/cm_usatoday/astheiraqsurgebuildssodoforebodingtrends

[Wakie]

Several points to make here ....

1. The US Cent Comm certainly has better intel than the NY Times.  However, US Cent Comm also has an incentive to put a positive spin on things and to conceal details from the public whereas the NY Times has no such incentive.

2. The biggest problem I have always had with the war in Iraq is that there is literally no quantifiable measure of progress.  The measures you (and Cent Comm) initially cited amount to basically "# of enemies neutralized".  It fails to measure "# of enemies created" during the same period.

3. Iraq did not threaten our allies and our national interests.  If you believe it did then please explain how it did so.

[Everett]

The words "surge" and "success" really do not belong together, and anyone who thinks so is clueless.

[DJ09]

Several points to make here ....

1. The US Cent Comm certainly has better intel than the NY Times.  However, US Cent Comm also has an incentive to put a positive spin on things and to conceal details from the public whereas the NY Times has no such incentive.

2. The biggest problem I have always had with the war in Iraq is that there is literally no quantifiable measure of progress.  The measures you (and Cent Comm) initially cited amount to basically "# of enemies neutralized".  It fails to measure "# of enemies created" during the same period.

3. Iraq did not threaten our allies and our national interests.  If you believe it did then please explain how it did so.

Point 2:  You can't deny however that progress has been made (ie. schools being built, water supply, elections, etc.)

Point 3:  Iraq did threaten our national interest by violating UN Security Council resolution (numerous ones in fact).  Also the genocide that occured under his regime was on the relm of Rwandan, and could have been the beginning of a holocuast.  Saddam ruled by force, and violence alone.  He gased hundred of thousand of kurds purely becuase the were kurdish.  And there was evidence that he was pursuing weapons, that would threaten surrounding countries. 

Iraq may have not litterally invaded our allies.. but Iraq was a save haven for terrorist.. and Al Qaeda..

The words "surge" and "success" really do not belong together, and anyone who thinks so is clueless.

On that note.... success can be achieved.. I am not clueless.. nor is our military over their who is achieving sucess

[2952-0-0]

Oh look, it's that troll from back in November. How do you feel of Governor Blackwell? Did he win in a landslide yet?

[CultureKing]

Several points to make here ....

1. The US Cent Comm certainly has better intel than the NY Times.  However, US Cent Comm also has an incentive to put a positive spin on things and to conceal details from the public whereas the NY Times has no such incentive.

2. The biggest problem I have always had with the war in Iraq is that there is literally no quantifiable measure of progress.  The measures you (and Cent Comm) initially cited amount to basically "# of enemies neutralized".  It fails to measure "# of enemies created" during the same period.

3. Iraq did not threaten our allies and our national interests.  If you believe it did then please explain how it did so.

Point 2:  You can't deny however that progress has been made (ie. schools being built, water supply, elections, etc.)

Point 3:  Iraq did threaten our national interest by violating UN Security Council resolution (numerous ones in fact).  Also the genocide that occured under his regime was on the relm of Rwandan, and could have been the beginning of a holocuast.  Saddam ruled by force, and violence alone.  He gased hundred of thousand of kurds purely becuase the were kurdish.  And there was evidence that he was pursuing weapons, that would threaten surrounding countries. 

Iraq may have not litterally invaded our allies.. but Iraq was a save haven for terrorist.. and Al Qaeda..

The words "surge" and "success" really do not belong together, and anyone who thinks so is clueless.

On that note.... success can be achieved.. I am not clueless.. nor is our military over their who is achieving sucess

We KNOW that Iraq did not have or was pursuing WMD's, and also Iraq had no connections with Al Qaeda. What wouldn't you define as a sucess by the way? It seems that you refuse to acknowledge the facts.

[Conan]

I didn't know 65%+ of the country self identified as liberals.

[Citizen James]

Welcome aboard freeper fella.   We've seen your type before - some actually learn somthing, start thinking for themselves, and become real conservatives rather than members of the Bush personallity cult.

If you look through the help files, you can find how to make links, like this one out of US central command.  I'm wondering, did you actually read any of the articles - or even visit the centcom website; or did you just cut and paste the list from a friend?

I see your list is edited - the two bombs that centcom report did explode missed your notice - even though they were mentione in the title of the article

If you have access to a decent sized university, a lot of them have decades of old newspapers on microfiche.  If you read through the late 60's early 70's you'll find a lot of very similar articles.    Victory requires achieveing real goals, not just random successes amidst chaos.

Since then, some bright individuals came up with something called the Powell Doctrine as criteria to be considered vital to be considered before  committing to millitary action.  The Iraq invasion failed on at least 6 of these.  (and #s 1 and 7 were iffy as well).

Further, in prosecuting the invasion Bush and his Trotsyitye/neocon advisors (you did realize that the neo-conservatives are former communists who decided to make a profit, didn't you?  Chairman Mao was dead wrong - freedom comes from within, not from a gun) regularly ignored the advise of generals and professional soldiers chosing instead to try and do war on the cheap and test out their pet theories.  Our millitary has done their best to serve with honor, but the civilian leadership has overrulled them time and again.  It would be hard for even a manchurian candidate to harm our troops as much as Bush's administration has.

I suppose it is a fault of the authoritarian mind that only polar opposites are considered  - get out totally or blindly follow Bush through the gates of hades.   Many promenent Republicans are recomending we take the recomendations of the Iraq study group seriously - and if we are to have any chance at all of salvaging this quagmire that would be strongly recomendable - but Bush refuses to listen to pragmatic rather than ideological advise.

And for what it's worth, I don't like Hillary much either.  (she's the left's version of GWB - except slightly smarter).  At this point I'm backing Richardson.

[DJ09]

Oh look, it's that troll from back in November. How do you feel of Governor Blackwell? Did he win in a landslide yet?

Congradulations on your prediction that the biggest idiot (even more than Taft) would become Governor of Ohio.  Towards the final weeks I began to conceede that many people in ohio had a horrible disease that corrupted their brain to vote for Strickland.  (joke please don't take it litterally)  I do accept that Blackwell lost and I was wrong.  However don't think Strickland will be in for long.  How long till re-election? By the way what has he done about education?? of course nothin'

[Wakie]

2. The biggest problem I have always had with the war in Iraq is that there is literally no quantifiable measure of progress.  The measures you (and Cent Comm) initially cited amount to basically "# of enemies neutralized".  It fails to measure "# of enemies created" during the same period.

Point 2:  You can't deny however that progress has been made (ie. schools being built, water supply, elections, etc.)

So now that these things have happened can we leave?  The answer from conservatives is usually 'no'.  But no one can tell me what are the unaccomplished tangible signs of "progress".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Point 3:  Iraq did threaten our national interest by violating UN Security Council resolution (numerous ones in fact).  Also the genocide that occured under his regime was on the relm of Rwandan, and could have been the beginning of a holocuast.  Saddam ruled by force, and violence alone.  He gased hundred of thousand of kurds purely becuase the were kurdish.  And there was evidence that he was pursuing weapons, that would threaten surrounding countries. 

Iraq may have not litterally invaded our allies.. but Iraq was a save haven for terrorist.. and Al Qaeda..
[/quote]

Many nations violate UN Security Council resolutions, including our allies.  The Bush administration has all but called the UN useless and antiquated.

Saddam was a brutal dictator who abused his people.  But we aren't the world's cop (and if you think we are I can start of list of oppressive regimes we will have to topple).  Not only this but when Saddam was gassing his people back in the 1980s it was Ronald Reagan (and the US) who was selling him the gas.  Point is, killing his own people doesn't make him a "threat to our national interests".

Last point, Saddam did not have links to Al Qaeda.  Bin Laden actually called for the Iraqi's to overthrow Saddam.


Iraq has been a major distraction from the real front in the "War on Terror" which is Afghanistan.  As time has gone on the situation has not improved in Iraq.  No one can tell me what the tangible signs of future progress will be.  But it isn't "we'll kill or capture more enemies".  If in 1 week I neutralize 50 enemies but create 150 new ones then things are going in the wrong direction.

[Padfoot]

Oh look, it's that troll from back in November. How do you feel of Governor Blackwell? Did he win in a landslide yet?

Congradulations on your prediction that the biggest idiot (even more than Taft) would become Governor of Ohio.  Towards the final weeks I began to conceede that many people in ohio had a horrible disease that corrupted their brain to vote for Strickland.  (joke please don't take it litterally)  I do accept that Blackwell lost and I was wrong.  However don't think Strickland will be in for long.  How long till re-election? By the way what has he done about education?? of course nothin'

LOL!  I love the double standard here!  Bush has had 4 YEARS to get things straightened out in Iraq and it is still a horrid mess but we should give him more time.  On the other hand Strickland has been in office for only 6 months and you condemn him for not immediately presenting a complete overhaul of the Ohio education system.  By the way, you apparently failed to notice the education budget changes Strickland proposed as well as his plan for higher education which Republicans have tried to hijack as their own ideas.  I'd hardly say that is nothing.  Also, the new state budget proposed by Strickland has practically sailed through the general assembly on a rainbow with widespread support from both parties.  After years of horrible partisan bickering in the state house I'd say that's quite an accomplishment for our new governor and the legislature both.

As for your ridiculous and outdated claims about Iraq and  Al-Qaeda, they have been disproved so many times by so many sources that it is incomprehensible how anyone can still believe that Al-Qaeda was in Iraq before we invaded.  Furthermore, Sadaam was not harboring terrorists or building WMDs.  He was a sh**tty dictator who killed lots of people but he was not a threat to the American people and he had nothing to do with 9/11.  The Iraq war has done nothing but detract from the reconstruction of Afghanistan and it has increased the number of people who want to destroy us.

[Smash255]

1.  Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11, nor did they have any ties to Al Qaeda.

2  Saddam's gassing of the Kurds was 14 YEARS prior to the invasion. In fact his gassing of the Kurds upset Ronald Reagan so much that he as well as  poppy Bush when he became President decided to fund Saddam for another 2 and a half years after he gassed the Kurds.

3.  Iraq wasn't a threat, they didn't have the weapons to attack us, nor the means to get the weapons to attack us

4.  Things are not going well, things in fact are getting worse.  More people both American & iraqis are dying than at any other time during the war.   Children are attending school at a lower rate than they were a couple years ago.

5.  the country is in a Civil War.

Now those are some facts for you buddy, not that I expect someone who stated Blackwell was going to win 2 weeks prior to the Election despite the facts that every poll had him trailing by double digits, but I digress

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

US soldier deaths in Iraq by quarter starting with Q2 2003

2003 Q2: 141
2003 Q3: 114
2003 Q4: 166
2004 Q1: 119
2004 Q2: 257
2004 Q3: 200
2004 Q4: 273
2005 Q1: 200
2005 Q2: 210
2005 Q3: 188
2005 Q4: 248
2006 Q1: 148
2006 Q2: 206
2006 Q3: 180
2006 Q4: 288
2007 Q1: 244
2007 Q2: 256 so far, will be around 340 at current rates

Gee, more targets = more deaths. Who would have guessed?

[Hash]

DJ09, graph the above numbers on a graph and add a trendline.

[True Democrat]

At the beginning, the surge seemed to working in Baghdad, unfortunately that isn't really the case anymore.

However, in al-Anbar I believe the surge is working.  I was listening to an NPR report the other day.  It said that al-Qaeda has pissed off the locals so much that about 16,000 local Iraqis have joined the police forces so far this year, compared to a couple hundred last year.  Violence is also down in that region and the government is starting to take back control.

[MODU]

Welcome to the forum, DJ09. 

[Verily]

2  Saddam's gassing of the Kurds was 14 YEARS prior to the invasion. In fact his gassing of the Kurds upset Ronald Reagan so much that he as well as  poppy Bush when he became President decided to fund Saddam for another 2 and a half years after he gassed the Kurds.

Just to point this out, it's still not clear who exactly was responsible for Halabja, and it is clear that they weren't killed intentionally but rather caught up in a battle between Iran and Iraq. (Unintentional civilian casualties in war are certainly bad, but not quite war crimes.) For years afterward, the US blamed Iran, and its intelligence pointed that way, then, in the late 1990s, the US switched positions and started blaming Iraq. It really could have been either, but as a cause for war it is clearly lacking.

[Middle-aged Europe]

The so-called "surge" certainly isn't a success... and frankly, my original expectation was that it won't become one. That's mainly because the number of troops used in the "surge" are definitely inadequate to deal with a situation like that in today's Iraq. DOUBLE them (= add another 160,000 soldiers) and it might make a difference.

The problem is that the U.S. military doesn't have another 160,000 soldiers they could spare. And even if they had them, it would still be political suicide to do it (= say hello to a Democratic landslide in '08!). So, an (re-)introduction of the draft would be the only alternative to get more troops.... which would be an even greater political suicide.

That leads us to the only other solution: ask your allies for more troops. Instead of starting to laugh and saying "Good luck!", let me elaborate why this wouldn't be a very realitistic approach either. First, the Iraq war is as unpopular in the European countries than it is in the U.S., probably even more so. The only difference is that this had been the case in Europe from the beginning, while it is a fairly recent development in the United States. And European politicans like to get re-elected as much as American politicans do... which was the reason why even someone like Berlusconi announced the withdrawal of his country's troops a few month before the last election  (not that this move helped him that much in the end).

Second, numerous European nations are occupied somewhere else and couldn't spare a lot of troops either.
Example: Germany. Granted, even the attempt to send German troops to Iraq would inevitably lead to the downfall of any German government. But even if we assume that this little problem disappears in miraculous way, there's still the point that German military experts are already warning about overstretching our ressources. Sending troops to Iraq would probably require to withdraw troops from somewhere else... *cough* Afghanistan *cough*


So, what could be done then? Haha, don't ask me, I have no idea... This question implies that something could be done about Iraq and I'm not even sure whether this is possible. The basic idea of Bush's "surge" was to send as many troops as could be spared (which are not that many) to Iraq... and then pray that it makes a difference. Maybe this is the best (= least bad) strategy, given the circumstances. Well, let me rephrase it: It's the only (viable) strategy, aside from withdrawing all U.S. troops. Will this strategy work? Not sure. Probably not. I certainly wouldn't bet a lot of money on a success of the Iraq surge.

Maybe the Democratic Party is at least realisitic enough to acknowledge that the situation is screwed up beyond any hope and that the only thing that could be done is to pull U.S. troops out of this situation... aside from the fact that Iraq is their opportunity to win the White House, while keeping control of both houses of Congress in 2008. Well, now I'm getting cynical.

[nlm]

Hey look, we're turning the corner yet again. This square shaped march we are making is giving me a strong sense of Deja Vu. If we turn the corner 2 more times we'll be back to where we started - for the 7th time.