The surge working...2008 implications?

[MODU]

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.

If you give any credit to polls, support actually bounced up last month (which coincides with the disappointment the democrats had with their session-break campaign).  However, polls (and committees) do not dictate military policy, so it wouldn't matter one way or another.

[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?

In general, better results. Maliki needs to show leadership and take charge of his country.

Maliki has no mandate to do that. He is only the prime minister because the US doesn't want a SCIRI prime minister because of SCIRI's links to Iran, and because all the more prominent non-SCIRI Shi'a politicians were already burned - ie had too bad a reputation in either Iraq, the US, or both. He is the prime minister of an all-party coalition, under a constitution that de facto requires constant two-thirds support for the government - but that was passed by two of the major three groups over the opposition of the third - , and whose members have widely conflicting aims* What exactly does "show leadership" or "take charge of "his" country" mean under these circumstances?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, local government except in Baghdad and the Sunni triangle is probably the only issue on which there's been any success whatsoever... though not necessarily of the type the US want - not in any way pointing to a unified or non-Iran-aligned Iraq, that is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

there are no Iraqi security forces. There are Kurdish security forces that do their job well, and Shi'a security forces that do (what they consider to be) their job very badly, but that the US would like to their job far worse than they do.

*The Kurds want to keep the defacto independence they eventually got from Saddam. They also want the dejure transfer of areas they defacto hold since the US invasion (and anyways inhabit) into their "autonomous region", which in practice is an independent country. If they don't get that (a referendum is constitutionally scheduled for this year) then all hell breaks loose, so I suppose they will. Which is a good thing. Oh, and they also want no meddling from Turkey.
The Shi'as want to grant a similar autonomy to the undisputably Sunni areas, thus keeping Baghdad to themselves. They are perfectly ready to use violence to bring the Sunnis to heel in that respect. They are divided on the issue of giving the Kurds the additional territory (Dawa and SCIRI in favor, As Sadr opposed). They also want the US troops out (though not necessarily all of them at one days' notice). They want a more-or-less close alliance with Iran, if possible without making enemies of the Americans.
The Sunnis basically want their country back.
And Bush just wants to save face.

[Inmate Trump]

The surge has worked, maybe not as much as most of us would've liked, but it *has* worked.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Even Ben Nelson admits the surge has failed. Not that this joke Congress is going to do a damn thing about that.

[nlm]

The surge has worked, maybe not as much as most of us would've liked, but it *has* worked.

When people say this I am confused. The surge was supposed to give the Iraqi government time and security to come together.

It appears it may have improved security in some areas of Iraq - but the Iraqi government didn't do anything with that time and security.

What did the United States get out of the surge? It doesn't seem that we got a single thing out of it. So in what way did it "work"?

[MODU]

The surge has worked, maybe not as much as most of us would've liked, but it *has* worked.

When people say this I am confused. The surge was supposed to give the Iraqi government time and security to come together.

It appears it may have improved security in some areas of Iraq - but the Iraqi government didn't do anything with that time and security.

What did the United States get out of the surge? It doesn't seem that we got a single thing out of it. So in what way did it "work"?

You are merging two objectives together.  As you said, the surge was to provide security for the government to do their thing, not to get the government to do their thing.  The surge has provided the security, so it has worked.  The Iraqi government has failed to act in a way which we think they should, but that isn't a part of the surge itself.

[nlm]

The surge has worked, maybe not as much as most of us would've liked, but it *has* worked.

When people say this I am confused. The surge was supposed to give the Iraqi government time and security to come together.

It appears it may have improved security in some areas of Iraq - but the Iraqi government didn't do anything with that time and security.

What did the United States get out of the surge? It doesn't seem that we got a single thing out of it. So in what way did it "work"?

You are merging two objectives together.  As you said, the surge was to provide security for the government to do their thing, not to get the government to do their thing.  The surge has provided the security, so it has worked.  The Iraqi government has failed to act in a way which we think they should, but that isn't a part of the surge itself.

Political progress was the reason for the surge - we didn't create a limited window of greater security for the sake of creating a limited window of greater security - we did it for a reason. The reason we did it didn't happen and isn't going to happen.

Unless you think we created this window of security just to prove we could - your comment doesn't make any sense. You are trying to untie the surge from the reason it was done. The surge has provided no measurable gains. That isn't the US militaries fault. They were asked to provide greater security, they figured out how to do so and then they did it. The reason it is a failure is two fold - one, the Iraqi government isn't within our realm of complete control and they didn't want to take advantage of the surge - and two, the civilian leadership of our military was dumb enough to believe the Iraqi leadership would take advantage of the surge and was also dumb enough (and desperate enough) to order our military to undertake such a fool's errand.

What you are suggesting (and everybody who is saying the surged worked) is very much like suggesting that a deer hunter succeeded if he just pulled the trigger. By untying the reason the deer hunter pulled the trigger from the act of pulling the trigger one could suggest that the deer hunter succeeded even if he missed the target. The reality there is that the gun succeeded but the deer hunter failed. In the case of the surge, our military is much like the deer hunters gun - they succeeded, they did what they were supposed to - but the Bush administration is much like the deer hunter himself - they directed the military in a faulty manner and missed the target completely.

[MODU]

No one is saying that the Iraqi government is off the hook, however, we cannot force them to do what we want either.  To say the surge isn't working is to ignore the facts.  A level of security was obtained to where the local and national governmental bodies could get together to resolve internal issues and grow stronger.  The US is holding up their end of the deal by providing a safer environment so the politicians to gather and perform their duties.  Just because they are not completing legislation that we want them to doesn't mean the surge is failing. 

A better example than your deer hunting one is this:  The voters elected the democrats to congress to pass key legislation and end the war.  10 months have passed, and they have yet to do it.  So, did the voters fail?  No, because they voted in enough democrats to change control of congress.  What has failed is the democratic politicians to pass legislation.

[Eraserhead]

'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.

Only you could turn this discussion into an analogy about raping someone Opebo.

[nlm]

No one is saying that the Iraqi government is off the hook, however, we cannot force them to do what we want either.  To say the surge isn't working is to ignore the facts.  A level of security was obtained to where the local and national governmental bodies could get together to resolve internal issues and grow stronger.  The US is holding up their end of the deal by providing a safer environment so the politicians to gather and perform their duties.  Just because they are not completing legislation that we want them to doesn't mean the surge is failing. 

A better example than your deer hunting one is this:  The voters elected the democrats to congress to pass key legislation and end the war.  10 months have passed, and they have yet to do it.  So, did the voters fail?  No, because they voted in enough democrats to change control of congress.  What has failed is the democratic politicians to pass legislation.

Actually the voters didn't vote in enough Democrats to get what they wanted. They voted enough in to defund the war, but only the hard core left wants to defund the war completely without thinking about where that leaves the troops or the region - and even then the President has the right to transfer money within the pentagon if he deems it a matter of national security (which he would if the Democrats defunded the war). They can not change the course of the war because they can not over come a filibuster or a veto. A responsible bill calling for an orderly draw down leaving limited forces in place is well beyond their ability with the numbers they currently have. Putting an end to this pipe dream about estabishing a democray in Iraq is beyond their ability as well.

People still want to succeed in Iraq - and defunding the war isn't going to be considered a success - they just have grown tired of Bush bumbling around and his inane idea of what success means. The only way those things are actually going to change is if the Democrats gain a super majority in the Senate or take the office of the President.

Many voters don't understand that - but you know better than to think the Democrats can do more than defund the war or that defunding the war is what the voters actually want at this point.

So - your comparison is highly flawed (much like the surge that you support) while mine doesn't have a hole in it.

[MODU]

So - your comparison is highly flawed (much like the surge that you support) while mine doesn't have a hole in it.

If you say so.

[nlm]

The surge has worked, maybe not as much as most of us would've liked, but it *has* worked.

When people say this I am confused. The surge was supposed to give the Iraqi government time and security to come together.

It appears it may have improved security in some areas of Iraq - but the Iraqi government didn't do anything with that time and security.

What did the United States get out of the surge? It doesn't seem that we got a single thing out of it. So in what way did it "work"?

You are merging two objectives together.  As you said, the surge was to provide security for the government to do their thing, not to get the government to do their thing.  The surge has provided the security, so it has worked.  The Iraqi government has failed to act in a way which we think they should, but that isn't a part of the surge itself.

Political progress was the reason for the surge - we didn't create a limited window of greater security for the sake of creating a limited window of greater security - we did it for a reason. The reason we did it didn't happen and isn't going to happen.

Unless you think we created this window of security just to prove we could - your comment doesn't make any sense. You are trying to untie the surge from the reason it was done. The surge has provided no measurable gains. That isn't the US militaries fault. They were asked to provide greater security, they figured out how to do so and then they did it. The reason it is a failure is two fold - one, the Iraqi government isn't within our realm of complete control and they didn't want to take advantage of the surge - and two, the civilian leadership of our military was dumb enough to believe the Iraqi leadership would take advantage of the surge and was also dumb enough (and desperate enough) to order our military to undertake such a fool's errand.

What you are suggesting (and everybody who is saying the surged worked) is very much like suggesting that a deer hunter succeeded if he just pulled the trigger. By untying the reason the deer hunter pulled the trigger from the act of pulling the trigger one could suggest that the deer hunter succeeded even if he missed the target. The reality there is that the gun succeeded but the deer hunter failed. In the case of the surge, our military is much like the deer hunters gun - they succeeded, they did what they were supposed to - but the Bush administration is much like the deer hunter himself - they directed the military in a faulty manner and missed the target completely.

No one is saying that the Iraqi government is off the hook, however, we cannot force them to do what we want either.  To say the surge isn't working is to ignore the facts.  A level of security was obtained to where the local and national governmental bodies could get together to resolve internal issues and grow stronger.  The US is holding up their end of the deal by providing a safer environment so the politicians to gather and perform their duties.  Just because they are not completing legislation that we want them to doesn't mean the surge is failing. 

A better example than your deer hunting one is this:  The voters elected the democrats to congress to pass key legislation and end the war.  10 months have passed, and they have yet to do it.  So, did the voters fail?  No, because they voted in enough democrats to change control of congress.  What has failed is the democratic politicians to pass legislation.

Actually the voters didn't vote in enough Democrats to get what they wanted. They voted enough in to defund the war, but only the hard core left wants to defund the war completely without thinking about where that leaves the troops or the region - and even then the President has the right to transfer money within the pentagon if he deems it a matter of national security (which he would if the Democrats defunded the war). They can not change the course of the war because they can not over come a filibuster or a veto. A responsible bill calling for an orderly draw down leaving limited forces in place is well beyond their ability with the numbers they currently have. Putting an end to this pipe dream about estabishing a democray in Iraq is beyond their ability as well.

People still want to succeed in Iraq - and defunding the war isn't going to be considered a success - they just have grown tired of Bush bumbling around and his inane idea of what success means. The only way those things are actually going to change is if the Democrats gain a super majority in the Senate or take the office of the President.

Many voters don't understand that - but you know better than to think the Democrats can do more than defund the war or that defunding the war is what the voters actually want at this point.

So - your comparison is highly flawed (much like the surge that you support) while mine doesn't have a hole in it.

If you say so.

So you are saying that voters do want to defund the war? Or are you saying that the Democrats can do more than just defund the war?

[Lief 🗽]

The surge (militarily) kinda showed some progress in Al-Anbar. Everywhere else, it's just lead to more deaths than ever before. And politically, there has been no progress whatsoever. Iraq is in the same or worse state that it was in in January.

[Saxwsylvania]

I sure hope the surge isn't working, because that might mean the Democrats can't have Iraq as an issue, and that doesn't bode well for 2008.  I'll just say that the surge is a failure.  Obama 08

[MODU]

So you are saying that voters do want to defund the war? Or are you saying that the Democrats can do more than just defund the war?

No, I'm saying that the American voters created the conditions in Congress for the Democratic party to achieve their legislative goals.  The Democrats, however, have not progressed as they thought they would have.  Just as in Iraq.  The military created the conditions on the ground to provide security for the Iraqi government to pass the legislation which we wish they would, however, they have yet to do so.  So, did the American voters and the election fail?  Of course not.  Just the politicians haven't achieved what many thought they would have by now.

[True Democrat]

I like how Naso never actually answered the question about the GAO report on benchmarks.

[Gabu]

I like how Naso never actually answered the question about the GAO report on benchmarks.

Naso has directly said that he consciously never responds to any arguments he finds inconvenient.

[Stranger in a strange land]

And if the surge works it won't matter six months from now unless the Iraqi government gets its act together. The key to winning in Iraq, and to our going home, is a poltical settlement between the Sunnis and the Shiites. Counter-insurgency only works when it backs up a credible indigenous government, and the current Iraqi government is corrupt, incompetent, and under Iranian influence.

[nlm]

So you are saying that voters do want to defund the war? Or are you saying that the Democrats can do more than just defund the war?

No, I'm saying that the American voters created the conditions in Congress for the Democratic party to achieve their legislative goals.  The Democrats, however, have not progressed as they thought they would have.  Just as in Iraq.  The military created the conditions on the ground to provide security for the Iraqi government to pass the legislation which we wish they would, however, they have yet to do so.  So, did the American voters and the election fail?  Of course not.  Just the politicians haven't achieved what many thought they would have by now.

OK - let me see if I've got this right.

You are saying that the surge has been as successful as the Democrats efforts to change the war policy in Iraq - and at the same time are saying that the surge has been a success?

That seems very odd.

[minionofmidas]

So you are saying that voters do want to defund the war? Or are you saying that the Democrats can do more than just defund the war?

No, I'm saying that the American voters created the conditions in Congress for the Democratic party to achieve their legislative goals.  The Democrats, however, have not progressed as they thought they would have.  Just as in Iraq.  The military created the conditions on the ground to provide security for the Iraqi government to pass the legislation which we wish they would, however, they have yet to do so.  So, did the American voters and the election fail?  Of course not.  Just the politicians haven't achieved what many thought they would have by now.

WHY should they wish to pass the legislation that YOU wish they would? (It's not actually about legislation at all, but that's sort of besides the point here.) Where is this "deal" you're referring to in the previous post?

[Reaganfan]

The President will speak to the nation this week in a primetime televised address on the success of the surge that will be released in the report.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

The President will speak to the nation this week in a primetime televised address on the success of the surge that will be released in the report.

This is Bush. He'll make a gaffe as always.

[Wakie]

The President will speak to the nation this week in a primetime televised address on the success of the surge that will be released in the report.

Dear God why?  He's an embarassment.

[nlm]

The President will speak to the nation this week in a primetime televised address on the success of the surge that will be released in the report.

Dear God why?  He's an embarassment.

Most of the country just ignores the idiot at this point. Most folks have clued in to the fact that Bush only makes political speeches and that he is not able to level with the American people about anything.

[Eraserhead]

The title of this thread should be "The surge failed... 2008 implications?"