The surge working...2008 implications?

[Reaganfan]

It appears as though the troop surge pushed by people such as President Bush, Senator McCain and other leading Republican candidates is working...and it's likely the report coming out next week from General Petraeus will show that.

So...what happens if this good news continues? Do the democrats continue to sound negative despite good news? What implications does this have on them and can it hurt the democrats if things look good and the democrats seem as though had we listened to them we wouldn't have had progress?

[Eraserhead]

The surge has failed.

[Reaganfan]

The surge has failed.

American combat deaths in Iraq have dropped by half in the three months since the buildup of 28,000 additional U.S. troops reached full strength.

[Gabu]

There were eighteen benchmarks set to determine success, and the White House said to allow until September to see how things are going.  Now it's September, and a report from the GAO has shown that three of the eighteen have been met, and none of the most important ones have been met.

But then again, Bush has always been the master of painfully low expectations, so I have no doubt that result will be trumpeted as a resounding success.

[Eraserhead]

What happened to you leaving the forum anyway Naso? That lasted about half an hour.

[Reaganfan]

Notice how you guys are trying so hard to be negative...to look at the bad...you guys literally want failure, don't you?

[Smash255]

Notice how you guys are trying so hard to be negative...to look at the bad...you guys literally want failure, don't you?

We are being negative because the reality is negative.  When you pass 3 of the 18 benchmarks, fail completely on 11 of them thats not a success its a failure.  Due to the intense heat in Iraq the summer months tend to be the least deadliest (just look at each and every years summer so far) yet August just generated the 2nd highest civilian death toll of the year.  Having among the highest death tolls during a time period which has generally been the lowest because of the intense heat is not a success.   We have now seen 12 months in a row with at least 70 American deaths in Iraq.  Prior to these past 12 months the most amount of months in a row we have seen with at least 70 American deaths was 3 and that only happened once.

[Gabu]

Notice how you guys are trying so hard to be negative...to look at the bad...you guys literally want failure, don't you?

Pointing at a report from the GAO is trying hard?

I'd hate to know what you think is easy.  The people trying hard are those looking at a lack of success in fifteen out of eighteen benchmarks and attempting to find success.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Well, I guess the GAO is trying very hard to be negative and wants to see a failure then.

[minionofmidas]

To call the surge a "success", at the very minimum the no. of deaths would have to remain low after troop strength has been reduced again.

[MODU]

From the current standpoint of the surge (note that the surge is not yet over), it has been a military success.  Politically, the Iraqi government still has much more to achieve.  As far as 2008 goes, it is still too early to say.  I don't think there will be any impact on most of the candidates themselves, save McCain, in regards to the future of Iraqi political progress.  The Republican party as a whole can only benefit if there is significant improvement in Iraqi politics.  Otherwise, the Democrats will continue to carry the momentum on the issue.

[Reaganfan]

I almost think it would be best to add an additional 20,000 troops to Iraq NOW...to assure any surge that is working remains working and gets better.

[minionofmidas]

I almost think it would be best to add an additional 20,000 troops to Iraq NOW...to assure any surge that is working remains working and gets better.

So what#s your longterm strategy? Keep the whole of Iraq under the strictest occupation regime for ever?
Best to transfer in an additional 200,000 troops, in that case. You'll need more police and secret service and army than Saddam needed to achieve the same objective, and they'll all have to be Americans.

[Reaganfan]

I almost think it would be best to add an additional 20,000 troops to Iraq NOW...to assure any surge that is working remains working and gets better.

So what#s your longterm strategy? Keep the whole of Iraq under the strictest occupation regime for ever?
Best to transfer in an additional 200,000 troops, in that case. You'll need more police and secret service and army than Saddam needed to achieve the same objective, and they'll all have to be Americans.

I would think that if we just smother the region with thousands and thousands of troops and the Iraqi government steps up better results, the violence will stop. We will have troops there for many, many years...how many depends on how fast the job gets done.

[nlm]

Notice how you guys are trying so hard to be negative...to look at the bad...you guys literally want failure, don't you?

Pointing at a report from the GAO is trying hard?

I'd hate to know what you think is easy.  The people trying hard are those looking at a lack of success in fifteen out of eighteen benchmarks and attempting to find success.

Wasn't the entire point of the surge to provide a more secure environment in order for the Iraqi parliament to advance the political goals. Increased security is nice and all, but the reason why the security was being created isn't being advanced in a meaningful way (plus the measurements of the security increases are all over the block depending upon what source is addressing the issue).

Gabu has it right here - 15 of 18 benchmarks have yet to be met, that's not a great success. And when the fact that the entire point of the surge (to buy time for the Iraqi government to resolve their differences) really hasn't been addressed at all - the surge looks like a fairly large failure.

[nlm]

I would think that if we just smother the region with thousands and thousands of troops and the Iraqi government steps up better results, the violence will stop.

Where are you getting these troops from? A draw down is going to start in April due to troop rotations, the surge will not last past then unless we move troops from Afghanistan (which needs more troops not less), start sending the Navy in on ground operations, or start a draft.

Your comments here are the stuff of pipe dreams.

[minionofmidas]

I almost think it would be best to add an additional 20,000 troops to Iraq NOW...to assure any surge that is working remains working and gets better.

So what#s your longterm strategy? Keep the whole of Iraq under the strictest occupation regime for ever?
Best to transfer in an additional 200,000 troops, in that case. You'll need more police and secret service and army than Saddam needed to achieve the same objective, and they'll all have to be Americans.

I would think that if we just smother the region with thousands and thousands of troops and the Iraqi government steps up better results, the violence will stop. We will have troops there for many, many years...how many depends on how fast the job gets done.

Care to elaborate? What would be "better results" for the Iraqi government?

[Reaganfan]

I almost think it would be best to add an additional 20,000 troops to Iraq NOW...to assure any surge that is working remains working and gets better.

So what#s your longterm strategy? Keep the whole of Iraq under the strictest occupation regime for ever?
Best to transfer in an additional 200,000 troops, in that case. You'll need more police and secret service and army than Saddam needed to achieve the same objective, and they'll all have to be Americans.

I would think that if we just smother the region with thousands and thousands of troops and the Iraqi government steps up better results, the violence will stop. We will have troops there for many, many years...how many depends on how fast the job gets done.

Care to elaborate? What would be "better results" for the Iraqi government?

In general, better results. Maliki needs to show leadership and take charge of his country. When it comes to their local government and the Iraqi security forces...their effort has been meager at best. They need to step up better.

[Brandon H]

They way things were going before wasn't good. I'll give Bush credit for trying something different. But things have gone so horrible that you will have a tough time convincing anyone that we should stay in Iraq.

I would like to know what conditions must be met before we can leave.

[nlm]

They way things were going before wasn't good. I'll give Bush credit for trying something different. But things have gone so horrible that you will have a tough time convincing anyone that we should stay in Iraq.

I would like to know what conditions must be met before we can leave.

The cynical answer to that question is - Bush needs to be out of office so the GOP can try and share the failure with the Dems.

Ron Paul may have it about right, we are just trying to save face right now - and that isn't a reason to spend billions of dollars and send our soldiers off to die for.

[opebo]

'The Surge is working'?  Perhaps, but what is the purpose of the surge, or the war in general?  I think we can all agree that just because something 'works' doesn't mean it is a great idea for all concerned. 

The best analogy would be to that of a rapist who, by redoubling his efforts at the last moment, manages to overcome token resistance for one more penetration.

[nlm]

In general, better results. Maliki needs to show leadership and take charge of his country. When it comes to their local government and the Iraqi security forces...their effort has been meager at best. They need to step up better.

Well - I'll agree with the "meager at best" part.

The reality is - we can not make them be anything more than "meager" and we are spending billions of our dollars and thousands of our soldiers lives in order for them to be "meager at best" and there isn't any indication that they are going to be anything more than "meager" after years of giving them the chance to be more.

The entire premiss of what Bush has been doing for years is fatally flawed. Democracy can only be achieved by a group of people willing to fight for it and work together to achieve it. Neither are the case in Iraq. We have given them more than enough time to prove otherwise. One of two things needs to happen at this point - either the Iraqi government needs to change the entire basis of their government or we need to stop wasting our money and lives on them.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Even if the surge works, it's meaningless.  Public support for the war is flatlined no matter what happens with the surge, and troops are going to need to be pulled out soon regardless of how it progresses.

[Reaganfan]

Even if the surge works, it's meaningless.  Public support for the war is flatlined no matter what happens with the surge, and troops are going to need to be pulled out soon regardless of how it progresses.

I strongly disagree with that statement.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

The surge fails. There's no way to succeed in land wars in islamic nations while leaving any survivors in the occupied territories.