Patraeus: Surge a Failure?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

BAGHDAD, March 13 -- Iraqi leaders have failed to take advantage of a reduction in violence to make adequate progress toward resolving their political differences, Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said Thursday.

Petraeus, who is preparing to testify to Congress next month on the Iraq war, said in an interview that "no one" in the U.S. and Iraqi governments "feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation," or in the provision of basic public services.

...

While violence has declined dramatically since late 2006, when thousands of Iraqis were being killed each month, U.S. military data show that attacks on U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians have leveled off or risen slightly in the early part of 2008. "I don't see an enormous uptick projected right now," Petraeus said, speaking in his windowless office in the U.S. Embassy, which is housed in Saddam Hussein's former Republican Palace. "What you have seen is some sensational attacks, there's no question about that."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/13/AR2008031303793_2.html

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the point of the surge to get the violence levels down to get the government working? I mean, if violence is leveling off, isn't that the best we can do from a military POV?

(And yes, I noticed the typo)

[JoeEllison]

Wow, those of us in the reality-based community were pretty sure this was going to fail. Now, the Bush administration's man on the ground confirms what we knew back in June/July of last year... what a shock. I guess this admission means that those of us who knew this crap almost a year ago were just "lucky", even though we've predicted every Bush failure for the last seven ****** years...

[Blue Mountain]

How were they going to define success? A reduction in the number of Iraqis killed? Or just Americans? (Hopefully both!)

Has that been achieved?

[JoeEllison]

How were they going to define success? A reduction in the number of Iraqis killed? Or just Americans? (Hopefully both!)

Has that been achieved?
I think the lie they were going with this month was "political progress"... which was tough, considering the fact that the Iraqi government takes lots of time off, fails to do anything of substance, and in general acts just like that idiot George W. Bush. :mad:

[Bikewer]

Reporters "on the ground" have been saying all along that though things in Baghdad are marginally "better", they are still absolutely awful. The bar was very, very low to begin with, so a slight raise doesn't mean much.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

I thought the goal of the surge was the spend more money, which I think was a success.

LLH

[UnrepentantSinner]

Let me first offer the caveat for those of you not familiar with my position on Iraq - I think it was a boondoggle and fiasco that was the most poorly planned execution of U.S. military power ever. That said, I hope the "surge" works and more importantly, I hope that al-Sadr and his forces will maintain the truce that has made it work (such as that word can be applied) since it was initiated.

If we have a military presence in Iraq for years to come, I'd rather it was like I experienced as a dependant in Iran and Germany rather than an endless occupation scenario that we're unfortunately looking at if the boil doesn't, at least, calm down to a simmer.

We needed 300,000 "coalition" troops for the initial invasion and occupation. We needed someone other than Bremmer to be the Viceroy. I'm glad we're having strategic* success finally, but why the hell is it coming 4-5 years after the invasion???

* F-you Condie forever, though I love you, for conflating Gee Dubyah's f-ed up "strategerie" with the actual successes of the "thousands and thousands" of tactical commanders, platoon leaders and NCOs who served magnificently during Operation Iraqi SNAFU that you and your overlords foisted upon us.

[PAC]

Thanks for this info. In other threads I have suggested that the Surge was a failure for the same reason and was beaten up by the (what would you call someone who has supported and continues to support this horrible war?)

[JoeEllison]

Thanks for this info. In other threads I have suggested that the Surge was a failure for the same reason and was beaten up by the (what would you call someone who has supported and continues to support this horrible war?)We should probably call them an ambulance to take them to a mental hospital for their own good?

[Darth Rotor]

I've been reading news reports and analysis on this Surge since it was first proposed.

The person who has held one of the keys to its success, or stated aims, is not a stakeholder in the success of the US in Iraq.

His name is Al Sadr. His well publicized guidance to his militia to back off on the violence was a significant contribution to some of the violence reduction early on.

At any time he and his faction choose to get froggy, the reduced violence aim of this Surge will go down in flames.

Other factions did not choose to show such restraint, with the predictable result that their activities were somewhat curtailed, at best.

Did the surge achieve its political aim within a year?

No.

Can it in three years?

Maybe, maybe not.

Will the expenditure of men and money to continue that approach be sustained, and can it be sustained?

I don't think so.

Worth a try, but there was no guarantee it would work. As it stands now, a whole lot else has to work for the stated aim, reduction in violence/civil war/destabilizing bomb attacks, for the political process in Iraq to move forward.

Not optimistic about the outcome.

DR

[Nogbad]

The surge is often talked about as if it was some cunning master plan. In actuality it is just more boots on the ground to keep a tin lid on things. In truth the error was going in with too few troops initially and allowing foreign fighters to gain a foothold in Iraq who in turn fester seething rage between Iraqi Sunnis and Shia - not to mention the wide scale looting and lawlessness following the invasion which crippled the country and its infrastructure.

The surge in reality has turned out to not be a quick boost of troops to deal with a specific problem but a long term increase in troop numbers to allow the Coalition to police more effectively while Iraqi troop numbers increase.

Of course, if the Iraqi Government fails to take advantage of the respite then yes it may well be in vain - although that is not the fault of the Coalition forces. It would seem that Iraq is going to cost another pretty penny or two before the show is over. I can't say I see any quick and easy way to extract ourselves either.

[fuelair]

Never been optimistic about the outcome, wouldn't care except it's real U.S. troops getting killed/mutilated/harmed, coming home to mostly piss-poor treatment and minimal help because G.Shrub thinks they are in an exciting/enobling war that he would give anything to be in now though he avoided it like the plague when he could have (Vietnam).

Yeah, I have a bad attitude about it. I also think al soddomite needs killing - and his followers the same if they don't skulk away.

[WildCat]

The surge is often talked about as if it was some cunning master plan. In actuality it is just more boots on the ground to keep a tin lid on things.
Not true at all! It's also a completely different strategy - for example, troops are no longer confined to a few large military bases but are spread out in many smaller bases to keep a more constant presence in problem areas. It also entails seeking the cooperation (and in many cases getting it) of insurgents and turning them to our side of the conflict. In many cases, US soldiers are fighting side by side with Iraqis who once fought them.

That the deaths among Iraqis and troops have gone down is indisputable, what needs to happen is for the Iraqis to take advantage of this situation and get the political process moving. Unfortunately, Petraeus can't do that for them.

[Undesired Walrus]

So is Al-Sadr some Iraqi Gerry Adams or something similar? Is he officially a fugitive and someone the US would be allowed to stick a bullet through?

I heard a while back he wouldn't mind seeing a 'Islamic democracy' in Iraq, but I'm not sure what he positions are on if he wants to be a caliph one day or not.

[WildCat]

So is Al-Sadr some Iraqi Gerry Adams or something similar? Is he officially a fugitive and someone the US would be allowed to stick a bullet through?

I heard a while back he wouldn't mind seeing a 'Islamic democracy' in Iraq, but I'm not sure what he positions are on if he wants to be a caliph one day or not.
Al Sadr's influence is waning, he is not drawing the crowds and support he once did. I think we should just let this continue to happen, putting a bullet in him now would just make him a martyr and revive his movement from near-death.

[Undesired Walrus]

He doesn't exactly have the good looks of Bin Laden, so I'm surprised he held their attention for this long!

[Nogbad]

Not true at all! It's also a completely different strategy - for example, troops are no longer confined to a few large military bases but are spread out in many smaller bases to keep a more constant presence in problem areas. It also entails seeking the cooperation (and in many cases getting it) of insurgents and turning them to our side of the conflict. In many cases, US soldiers are fighting side by side with Iraqis who once fought them.

That the deaths among Iraqis and troops have gone down is indisputable, what needs to happen is for the Iraqis to take advantage of this situation and get the political process moving. Unfortunately, Petraeus can't do that for them.

:) OK it is more boots on the ground in a configuration that is more useful. I take it Rumsfeld is carrying the can for the original plan?

Agreed there is a limit to what we can do.

[Undesired Walrus]

Sunni tribes have started to take on Al-Qeada. That's quite promising.

[Trakar]

I thought the goal of the surge was the spend more money, which I think was a success.

LLH

I thought the goal was to give another reason to thwart Democratic attempts to end the occupation and begin drawing down forces?

[WildCat]

occupation
I do not think that word means what you think it does.

[Ziggurat]

Umm... the quote in question contains the phrase, "sufficient progress". The word "sufficient" seems to be getting ignored, but I suspect it's at the heart of what Petraeus was talking about. Not sufficient for what? For the Iraqis to stand on their own? Yeah, I'd say that hasn't happened yet. Not sufficient to say that the surge isn't a failure, as Joe claims? I'm afraid there's no basis for reaching that conclusion from Petraeus's quote.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Since Ann Coulter described things as going "swimmingly" a few years ago, we should have some official analogies to chart "sufficient progress". Are things now going "kyackingly" and we can look forward to them eventually going "walkonwateringly"?

[Trakar]

I do not think that word means what you think it does.

Occupation - A condition in which territory is under the effective control of a foreign armed force.

What does the term "occupation" mean to you?

[WildCat]

Occupation - A condition in which territory is under the effective control of a foreign armed force.

What does the term "occupation" mean to you?
It has a legal definition you know, and by that definition Iraq has not been occupied since June 2004. That was when Iraq was handed over to the Iraqis.

Per the Geneva Conventions, Iraq is no longer occupied.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Not that I want to go too far down that alley, but when it comes to Realpolitik, what changes have really occured when it comes to self-governance since Bremmer shook Iraqi dust from hit boots and today?

I know it was a great symbolic (and sneaky) movement by the CIG, but we have more U.S. troops on the ground there than then so when exactly did we stop being an "occupying" force and start being a force that was merely present?

Look, I don't have the military experience of my dad, DR, Joe Ellison, the current CENTCOM commanders, John McCain, or even president Bush who spent more time in the AFNG than I did in the ANG, but even I can see that OIF has been the most f-ed up military endevour by the U.S. since.. well, I was going to analagize it to VietNam, but this is more like the Soviet's time in Afghanistan. You can cite all the legalistic mumbo-jumbo BS that you want, but we conquered a nation in 90 days and have utterly f-ed up the "occupation" of it for the last 5 years mainly due to politicians running the war, not the generals (umm, VietNam analogy anyone).

The neocons screwed the pooch on this one and a lot of patriotic young Americans are paying the price for it. It's time to admit that fact and see how we can extricate ourselves without disgracing the sacrifice of the almost 4,000 dead and 30,000+ wounded. Dubyah's boondoogle has failed, even if the surge and eventual pacification of Iraq succceedes.

[Upchurch]

The neocons screwed the pooch on this one and a lot of patriotic young Americans are paying the price for it.
But-- Saddam Hussain was a very bad man. (http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2008/03/10/tomo/)

[Trakar]

It has a legal definition you know, and by that definition Iraq has not been occupied since June 2004. That was when Iraq was handed over to the Iraqis.

Per the Geneva Conventions, Iraq is no longer occupied.

Actually, the definition I quoted is a United Nations term definition and according to both their, and the Geneva Convention, definitions, we (US) are still militarily occupying Iraq. If your intent is to quibble over a naive legalese cover/interpretation of terms and responsibilities then you should have avoided bringing up the UN and the Geneva Conventions, as they anticipate, and are designed for the most part, with the specific intent of abbrogating such superficial (and largely domestic political debate) obsfucations.

Article 4 of Geneva Convention IV, if interpreted in the light of its object and
purpose, is directed to the protection of civilians to the maximum extent possible.
It therefore does not make its applicability dependent on formal bonds and
purely legal relations. Its primary purpose is to ensure the safeguards afforded
by the Convention to those civilians who do not enjoy the diplomatic protection,
and correlatively are not subject to the allegiance and control, of the State
in whose hands they may find themselves. In granting its protection, Article 4
intends to look to the substance of relations, not to their legal characterisation
as such Prosecutor v. Tadic (Case IT-94-1-A) (1999) paragraph 168 (http://www.un.org/icty/tadic/appeal/judgement/tad-aj990715e.pdf).

Security Council Resolution 1546 of June 8, 2004, endorsed the transferal by June 30, 2004, of authority in Iraq from the CPA to the interim Iraqi government, which had been set up on June 1, 2004. Resolution 1546 deemed that with this transfer of authority, the occupation of Iraq would come to an end. Noting that the presence of the multinational force in Iraq was at the request of the Iraqi interim government, the Council granted that force “the authority to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq” in accordance with the letters exchanged between the Prime Minister of the Iraqi interim government and the U.S. Secretary of State. The Council viewed these two letters as establishing a “security partnership”—indeed a “full partnership”—between the interim Iraqi government and the multinational force (Article 11).

Resolution 1546 does not elaborate on the international legal obligations to which the multinational force is subject when exercising its authorities. The only reference to this issue appears in the letter of Secretary of State Colin Powell, who asserts that “the forces that make up the [multinational force] are and will remain committed at all times to act consistently with their obligations under the law of armed conflict, including the Geneva Conventions.” The law of occupation, part of which is set out in the Fourth Geneva Convention, requires such a commitment.

Although, by some US considerations the formal occupation of Iraq ended on June 28, 2004, to the extent that the United States and other foreign troops operating in Iraq continue to wield effective control over Iraqis and Iraqi
property, they are bound by this body of laws. As the International Criminal Tribunal - Yugoslavia noted in the Tadic case mentioned above, the Fourth Geneva Convention “does not make its applicability dependent on formal bonds and purely legal relations. . . . Article 4 [of that Convention] intends to look to the substance of relations, not to their legal characterisation as such.”

It is certainly your privilege to play around with technical definitions, but my application of the term "occupation" is both appropriate and de facto founded in International Law and common parlance understandings.

[Cicero]

I thought the goal was to give another reason to thwart Democratic attempts to end the occupation and begin drawing down forces?

Would those be the same Democrats that took over the Congress and the Senate and proved that they were merely paying lip service to people like you who voted for them?

Cindy Sheehan's challenge to Nancy Pelosi's congressional seat is the perfect example.

[Trakar]

Would those be the same Democrats that took over the Congress and the Senate and proved that they were merely paying lip service to people like you who voted for them?


Ain't it a shame when politicians, turn out to be politicians, regardless of what letter they sport after their name?! Its precisely this type of duplicitous action that led to me severing my ties with the Republican party back in '94, and make me glad that I never registered as a Democrat, even after the Shrubling and his henchmen made such so attractive an option.

[Blue Mountain]

Would those be the same Democrats that took over the Congress and the Senate and proved that they were merely paying lip service to people like you who voted for them?
There's also the fact the Republican president still has a veto and isn't afraid to use it. Although the congress is controlled by the Democrats, they can't muster the votes needed to override a presidential veto. So for now they play safe. The situation would change with a democratic president in the White House.

[Cicero]

There's also the fact the Republican president still has a veto and isn't afraid to use it. Although the congress is controlled by the Democrats, they can't muster the votes needed to override a presidential veto. So for now they play safe. The situation would change with a democratic president in the White House.

The only Dem that was going to call for immediate pull out of troops from Iraq was Kucinich. Obama has said he would take the advice of the Pentagon before making any drastic changes in Iraq. So how again are the Dems going to make good on their hollow promise of ending American involvement in Iraq RQS? Unless Cindy Sheehan wins as a write in candidate, any new president will immediately realize the ramifications of stripping Iraq of American troops just to appease the far left.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Would those be the same Democrats that took over the Congress and the Senate and proved that they were merely paying lip service to people like you who voted for them?

Cindy Sheehan's challenge to Nancy Pelosi's congressional seat is the perfect example.

That's it? That's your response to the substance discussing the military and geopolitical realities of Iraq? Political three card monte and the start of the inevitable "laundry list argument"? Why cut your list short instead of mentioning Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore and George Clooney as well?

[mrbaracuda]

Umm... the quote in question contains the phrase, "sufficient progress". The word "sufficient" seems to be getting ignored, but I suspect it's at the heart of what Petraeus was talking about. Not sufficient for what? For the Iraqis to stand on their own? Yeah, I'd say that hasn't happened yet. Not sufficient to say that the surge isn't a failure, as Joe claims? I'm afraid there's no basis for reaching that conclusion from Petraeus's quote.

And if I'm not mistaken the thread's title is rather meh and judging by the OP's citations it's not the surge that's failing, but the Iraqis themselves / Iraqi gov.

[Cicero]

That's it? That's your response to the substance discussing the military and geopolitical realities of Iraq? Political three card monte and the start of the inevitable "laundry list argument"? Why cut your list short instead of mentioning Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore and George Clooney as well?

Naturally pointing out the impotency of the Democrats in congress does not address the "geopolitical realities" like your inane puns "kyackingly" and "walkonwateringly," that is an attempt to ridicule those that prefer stability in Iraq.

[E.J.Armstrong]

And if I'm not mistaken the thread's title is rather meh and judging by the OP's citations it's not the surge that's failing, but the Iraqis themselves / Iraqi gov.

Why then was the surge needed? This is like blaming the inmates for the existence of concentration camps.

[Darth Rotor]

Why then was the surge needed?
There is an old adage used when coaching tennis:

Never change a winning game plan, always change a losing game plan.

Whatever was going on before this surge was not working, in terms of achieveing the political objectives. See above adage. A different course of action was adopted in an attempt to change the success rate of political aims. (Publicly, one of the political aims is the implementation of democracy, whatever form that is to take, in Iraq. Another aim is to keep Iraq in one piece, rather than see it break three, four, or five parts.)

If the people who live in Iraq don't buy into the aims, or convince themselves that those aims are to their benefit, one can argue that such aims have little to no hope of being achieved, and certainly not within a short (two to five years) time frame.

As a sales job for convincing a critical mass of people in Iraq to buy into that vision, this Surge does not seem to have, in the time frame alloted, achieved that. Since I can't mind read the collective sentiments of the diverse populace of Iraq, I am not sure what sales job would work. If people identify by tribe nationality most strongly, it takes a significant outside threat to convince them to merge tribal priorities and work collectively. The Kurdish example alone shows that such an outside threat is not apparent to the bulk of the people of Iraq.

The valid question to ask any of the strategists in Washington is:

Now what?

DR

[kallsop]

<<<Petraeus, who is preparing to testify to Congress next month on the Iraq war, said in an interview that "no one" in the U.S. and Iraqi governments "feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation," or in the provision of basic public services.>>>


Will there be a discount NYT General Betray-us Sucks celebratory ad if the enemy wins? I can't wait.

[mrbaracuda]

Why then was the surge needed? This is like blaming the inmates for the existence of concentration camps.

The surge was needed to get a (better) grip on the situation and have "more boots on the ground" to do establish better security in Baghdad and the al Anbar province, if I'm not mistaken.

Alas, many Iraqis are prone to people like Sadr, who seems to be keen on transforming Iraq into a purely Islamic state (http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1726.htm) and promote the targeting of US material, both people and armour. Not to mention al Qaeda, which hopefully is on the run and is having problems with the local residents as mentioned in a NY Times article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article2121006.ece).

Which all could be said runs contrary to a majority of the people who have voted for a somewhat democracy and what the US is pushing together with the current Iraqi government.

[mrbaracuda]

This is like blaming the inmates for the existence of concentration camps.

I don't know why you had to whip out concentration camps in this matter, but if you see it that way. I don't. Or are you suggesting the Iraqi people and the government is powerless and can't change their "concentration camp"?

[fishbob]

Naturally pointing out the impotency of the Democrats in congress does not address the "geopolitical realities" like your inane puns "kyackingly" and "walkonwateringly," that is an attempt to ridicule those that prefer stability in Iraq.

1 - Those were not puns, those were bitter sarcasm.
2 - The primest example of inane in this discussion: Would those be the same Democrats that took over the Congress and the Senate and proved that they were merely paying lip service to people like you who voted for them?

Cindy Sheehan's challenge to Nancy Pelosi's congressional seat is the perfect example.

3 - I take that back, this is: It has a legal definition you know, and by that definition Iraq has not been occupied since June 2004. That was when Iraq was handed over to the Iraqis.

Per the Geneva Conventions, Iraq is no longer occupied.

[Upchurch]

Which all could be said runs contrary to a majority of the people who have voted for a somewhat democracy and what the US is pushing together with the current Iraqi government.
That vote was a long time ago and it isn't like the somewhat democracy managed to accomplish much.

The biggest principle of democracy is self-determination. That the Iraqi people are self-determining themselves in a different direction than what we other-determined for them can hardly be surprising.

[Whack01]

Of course it's working, leaving Arafat alive for a decade worked so well for Isreal that we don't want to kill muqtada al sadr. We may anger the people who are blowing themselves up to kill us!

/end sarcasm

I am not worried so long as the violence is not directed against civilians and is being instigated by our side. If the enemy is instigating the engagements and including civilian targets then he's accomplishing his objectives and our progress has stalled. On the other hand if we are instigating the engagements, and choosing the place of combat then we are making progress. However, even if progress stalls for a week after five months of progress I would not call that a bad thing, nor unexpected.


/but in all seriousness were you folks asking "is the surge working?" when troop casualties were down?

//Republicans have till november, then thats game as far as I'm concerned. I'll sit down review the last six months of news and give their asses the boot most likely. With the exception of blanche lincoln who blocked the Dorgan-Grassly amendment by threatening a filibuster forcing democrats to do some high speed maneuvering to save face. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/14/AR2007121401843.html) I'll vote for anyone who runs against lincoln, as long as it's not another xenophobic demagogue like Jim Holt.

[mrbaracuda]

That vote was a long time ago and it isn't like the somewhat democracy managed to accomplish much.

That vote was in December of 2005, wasn't it? I don't see how that is such a long time like you are proposing. It's barely been one and a half years. You also got to consider how many lists are in the parties. 22 alone in the one Maliki's heading. It's not going to be easy, but the will seems to be there - and not just because the government or the US said so.

The biggest principle of democracy is self-determination. That the Iraqi people are self-determining themselves in a different direction than what we other-determined for them can hardly be surprising.

Who are "the Iraqi" people you're talking about here? The 41% who voted for the ruling party? The other 21% for the party that called itself democratic (although it's Kurdish, but still, it's part of Iraq)? Sure, some have withdrawn their members from the government, but this is something new to many there.

What is the other-determined direction they want to go? Is it establishing an Islamic state? Do you know how many people want to go this way?

If you'd rather "cut and run" instead of giving it a shot, go ahead. To do this after the government has somewhat "settled down" for not even two years is in my opinion too early, even if it's hard.


Gotta say though, I'm not too interested in it - mainly because it's a problem of your country, not ours. I try not to butt in into foreign countries' problems and suggest what's right or wrong.



But thank goodness the remnants of the Nazis weren't violent, devout Muslims and the Allies firm.

[Skeptic Ginger]

How were they going to define success? A reduction in the number of Iraqis killed? Or just Americans? (Hopefully both!)

Has that been achieved?The way I define success in Iraq would be for us to be gone and the country to have established a peaceful functioning country.

We are not closer to either of those goals as far as I can see. The Iraqis on their own may or may not be closer to working out a stable government. That one is harder to judge given the reporting we get is not very complete.

A reduction in the number of deaths is an important goal, don't get me wrong. But when all it means is ethnic cleansing is complete in various sections of the country or that the Mahdi army is holding off attacks while Muqtada al-Sadr is on the US corruption payroll, then what you really have is a simple facade of success Bush can present McCain just before the Nov elections.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I thought the goal of the surge was the spend more money, which I think was a success.

LLH
It might be if you own stock in the military industrial complex, the oil companies, or you are in the Chinese government. :rolleyes:

[Skeptic Ginger]

...(what would you call someone who has supported and continues to support this horrible war?)Gullible!

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sunni tribes have started to take on Al-Qeada. That's quite promising.Well d'uh! Why would they let some outsiders take over their country?

There wasn't support for al Qaeda before we invaded. The only reason Iraqis would appreciate al Qaeda's assistance would be if the Iraqis couldn't do it themselves or they bought into the ideology. I don't think they buy the ideology (they certainly didn't before all this), and since we armed them with all the weapons and explosives that they had before we got there, and since there are countless unemployed men among them, more than motivated to hate American soldiers, then the Iraqis shouldn't need any outside help.

The idea al Qaeda will move in if we leave an unstable government is a crock o'. In addition to the negative opinion of the US should total civil war breakout the other big problem is not knowing who would win that Sunni-Shiite-Shiite-Kurdish civil war and the Bushco Neocons are afraid the winners will prefer to sell oil to other customers than the US since they can and since we trashed their country.

[Skeptic Ginger]

It has a legal definition you know, and by that definition Iraq has not been occupied since June 2004. That was when Iraq was handed over to the Iraqis.

Per the Geneva Conventions, Iraq is no longer occupied.Like I said, gullible!

WC, get real. If we really handed the reins over to the Iraqis how is it the Iraqis were unable to prosecute the Blackwater murder suspects like the Iraq government said they thought they should be able to do?

In fact, if I recall, at the least the Iraqi government wanted to evict Blackwater from the country and they couldn't even do that.

[Skeptic Ginger]

And if I'm not mistaken the thread's title is rather meh and judging by the OP's citations it's not the surge that's failing, but the Iraqis themselves / Iraqi gov.
It is a bit egocentric to claim the Iraqis are just incompetent and the big strong US can't play momma forever.


The Bush failure to manage this right goes a lot deeper than just not having enough troops. Prince Brenner, appointed by King George set the country up to fail with a slew of laws favoring the corporatocracy and outlawing labor unions. They brought in almost all foreign crony contractors, who in turn brought in cheap foreign labor while millions of Iraqis were unemployed. Prince Brenner and King George thought those good old Libertarian policies would let the market forces fix everything without noticing how absurd that idea was given the conditions we left behind as the "major combat operations .. ended"

And we've allowed the incredibly corrupt Maliki government to rip us off and the Iraqi people see it even if the Americans naively don't. Do you really think the inability to rebuild the infrastructure is just because Iraqis are fighting among themselves for greedy reasons? That might be true for some of the leaders who want a piece of the power pie, but for the rest, they are reacting to what they see as occupying forces because of our behavior and policies, not just because we are there and we are foreigners.

I think it is wrong to think the problem here is just incompetent Iraqis. They had a lot of our help screwing things up, and not just the first few months of our invasion. The ambitions of Bushco were to have permanent military bases and foreign oil companies with majority control over the oil resources. Just as the Neocons before Bushco, they believed all they needed was to prop up a Maliki type government, vote or no vote, and we could get the rest. Maliki obviously does not enjoy the widespread support his being elected suggests. It is US policy, cronyism and Bushco ambitions that have kept Iraq from reforming a stable country.

[mrbaracuda]

Well d'uh! Why would they let some outsiders take over their country?

There wasn't support for al Qaeda before we invaded. The only reason Iraqis would appreciate al Qaeda's assistance would be if the Iraqis couldn't do it themselves or they bought into the ideology. I don't think they buy the ideology (they certainly didn't before all this)

Oh, you sure about that?

5WDIulOKbRA

You can say "Oh but that was just propaganda before the invasion!", but that ideology - called Islam by the way - didn't just come into existence because Saddam let that guy preach freely.

Bushco Neocons

Amusing as always. What are (Bushco) Neocons? :confused:

[Skeptic Ginger]

Bushco is short for the bunch of them, Bush and company, and Neocon is just being redundant.

I'm not going to argue with you or anyone about al-Qaeda in Iraq. There are people in this country that sympathize with al-Qaeda, so what? And Iraq is the Islamic center of the world. But clearly Iraq was not an al-Qaeda centered country before we invaded and the only home-grown al-Qaeda there now are probably only more popular thanks to Bush.

Shiites outnumber Sunnis in Iraq and al-Qaeda is mostly a Sunni group. The Sunnis getting the most attention right now for militant resistance are loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr, not Bin Laden.

So what are you trying to claim, that every extremist Muslim group is an al-Qaeda group?

Here, try this interview transcript (http://www.al-islam.org/inquiries/21.html) for a summary of the deep divisions among the groups you seem to see as all the same.

[mrbaracuda]

Bushco is short for the bunch of them, Bush and company, and Neocon is just being redundant.

Right. Hm, I'm tempted to use "Skeptigirlco and Neoredundants" in the near future. Still though, what are "Neocons" - to you? Your definition should be.. interesting.

So what are you trying to claim, that every extremist Muslim group is an al-Qaeda group?

Nope.

Here, try this interview transcript (http://www.al-islam.org/inquiries/21.html) for a summary of the deep divisions among the groups you seem to see as all the same.

Nope. You seem to have missed my frequent posts about Islam and Muslims, although to be fair I think I haven't touched the diversity much or at all. To suggest I see all Muslims as a homogenous group is ridiculous, so I don't know what you are trying to achieve with this. I'm pretty sure I have never expressed such thing.

[Darth Rotor]

And Iraq is the Islamic center of the world.
Huh?

I thought that was in Mecca, the center of the Islamic world. Ya know, the place where all those Muslims go on Hajj once before they die. It is located in the wasteland holy land Osama wanted all the Americans out of, Saudi Arabia. This is the same holy land Syria and Egypt sent troops to fight for in 1991, though they didn't do much fighting alongside their alleged ally, the US.

Would you care to explain what you meant by that? Were you just being careless, or do you honestly believe that, Iraq being the Islamic center of the world?

The Dome of the Rock is in Jerusalem.
The Black Stone is in Mecca.
The Prophet was from Medina.
The Imam Ali Shrine, OK, that is in An Najaf, Iraq, but is only a big deal among the Shia, who are about a tenth of the Muslims in the world.

DR

[Gurdur]

.... And Iraq is the Islamic center of the world. ...
It is? :boggled:


The Sunnis getting the most attention right now for militant resistance are loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr, not Bin Laden.

Just how many Sunnis are supposed to be loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqtada_al-Sadr), and be getting all the attention you allege?

:boggled: :boggled: :boggled:

[Skeptic Ginger]

Huh?

I thought that was in Mecca, the center of the Islamic world. Ya know, the place where all those Muslims go on Hajj once before they die. It is located in the wasteland holy land Osama wanted all the Americans out of, Saudi Arabia. This is the same holy land Syria and Egypt sent troops to fight for in 1991, though they didn't do much fighting alongside their alleged ally, the US.

Would you care to explain what you meant by that? Were you just being careless, or do you honestly believe that, Iraq being the Islamic center of the world?

The Dome of the Rock is in Jerusalem.
The Black Stone is in Mecca.
The Prophet was from Medina.
The Imam Ali Shrine, OK, that is in An Najaf, Iraq, but is only a big deal among the Shia, who are about a tenth of the Muslims in the world.

DRWell I was counting a bigger circle, should of said "in the" rather than "is". My bad.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Right. Hm, I'm tempted to use "Skeptigirlco and Neoredundants" in the near future. Still though, what are "Neocons" - to you? Your definition should be.. interesting.Be my guest. If my shorthand for the "the Bush administration, supporters, and all the evangelical minded Republicans using the government to bully the rest of the world, using the government for their own selfish monetary gains and using the government to push their religion on the rest of us" is not to your liking, I see no reason I should care. The full description is much too long.


Nope. .... Nope. You seem to have missed my frequent posts about Islam and Muslims, although to be fair I think I haven't touched the diversity much or at all. To suggest I see all Muslims as a homogenous group is ridiculous, so I don't know what you are trying to achieve with this. I'm pretty sure I have never expressed such thing.Why then do you think al Qaeda is likely to have a large presence in Iraq? They didn't seem to be there before we invaded the country.

[mrbaracuda]

The full description is much too long.

But would be so worth it!

Why then do you think al Qaeda is likely to have a large presence in Iraq? They didn't seem to be there before we invaded the country.

I doubt I've called it a large presence. There seems to be a presence, so why should I not think this after reading a bunch of articles about it and even some al-Qaeda-written article about how it's coming down to a somewhat decisive last stand in Iraq?

Are you denying there is a presence of al-Qaeda in Iraq? Or are you just nit-picking over how large this presence is?

Let me ask you something: How large is the presence of those so-called "Islamists"? You don't need al-Qaeda for the "ideology", you might need it for planning, funding and coordinating.

And have you ever noticed there was a not-so-religious dictator ruling with an iron fist in Iraq prior to the invasion? What does it matter if they weren't there before? Looks like you like living or at least thinking in the past.

Would you rather have Saddam back in place, who probably had the habit of squashing "Islamists" when they were getting too much power, like Sadr?

[Skeptic Ginger]

At the moment, yes, if we could go back to Iraq before GW, definitely yes, I would prefer that. And I imagine more than a few Iraqis would prefer the pre-GW Iraq, even some of the Shiites. Not so sure about the Kurds.

It's typical for the GW supporters to drag that motto out every time they are reminded what an incredible mess this President has made of everything. Oh, but Saddam was such an evil man. Kim Jong-Il let a few million people starve to death. Whoever is in charge in Darfur is encouraging mass rape and mutilation as a form of terrorism. The list is rather long and Saddam wasn't even at the top of it.

Face it, this war has done nothing but make terrorism worse. It's absurd to rationalize it.

[mrbaracuda]

At the moment, yes, if we could go back to Iraq before GW, definitely yes, I would prefer that. And I imagine more than a few Iraqis would prefer the pre-GW Iraq, even some of the Shiites. Not so sure about the Kurds.

Yea, maybe Baathists. Shiites probably not so much. How come you're not so sure about Kurds? Oh right, who cares. You'd rather have them getting killed again instead of flourishing!

It's typical for the GW supporters to drag that motto out every time they are reminded what an incredible mess this President has made of everything. Oh, but Saddam was such an evil man. Kim Jong-Il let a few million people starve to death. Whoever is in charge in Darfur is encouraging mass rape and mutilation as a form of terrorism. The list is rather long and Saddam wasn't even at the top of it.

Then I guess it's typical for rabid left-winger nuts to drag out other dictators and the likes for whatever reason. It doesn't even connect.

Face it, this war has done nothing but make terrorism worse. It's absurd to rationalize it.

What has become worse compared to what?

[Elind]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/13/AR2008031303793_2.html

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the point of the surge to get the violence levels down to get the government working? I mean, if violence is leveling off, isn't that the best we can do from a military POV?

(And yes, I noticed the typo)

He said there has been "insufficient progress", as is to be expected from Iraqis.

You said he said it was a "failure" which is blatantly rewriting someone else's words, but only to be expected I suppose.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Did you catch the Congressional hearing that was on CSPAN this morning, mrbaracuda? You might have found it interesting. The opening statements are here (http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/hearings/2008/hrg080402a.html) but the transcripts come out later usually. The hearings started a couple days ago and have a few more days of testimony left.

Lt General Odom's testimony (http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/testimony/2008/OdomTestimony080402a.pdf) is of particular interest. I urge everyone to read it. It is really critical information.

NYTimes story (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/18/world/middleeast/18cnd-general.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)A panel of retired generals told a United States Senate committee today that sending 21,500 additional troops to Iraq will do little to solve the underlying political problems in the country.

“Too little and too late,” is the way Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, a former chief of the Central Command, described the effort to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The additional troops are intended to help pacify Baghdad and a restive province, but General Hoar said American leaders had failed to understand the political forces at work in the country. “The solution is political, not military,” he said.

“A fool’s errand,” was the judgment of Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, who commanded troops in the first Gulf War. He said other countries had concluded that the effort in Iraq was not succeeding, noting that “our allies are leaving us and will be gone by summer.”...

...The American effort in Iraq has gone badly because the United States did not understand the consequences of deposing Saddam Hussein, said Lt. Gen. William E. Odom, a former director of the National Security Agency. He said the principal beneficiary of the war was Iran and Al Qaeda, not the United States.

“There is no way to win a war that is not in your interests,” he said.One of the generals in discussing the failure of the Iraqi government to step up to the plate suggested only another military strongman was likely to succeed and he was concerned Muqtada al-Sadr was looking to be the next Ayatollah. The other thing mentioned by the generals in their testimony was the fact the Iraqis are so sick of the violence they would prefer a military strongman to the current situation.


Saddam was contained. What comes next is an unknown. Just reciting the mantra that Saddam was a bad man does not make the invasion the right choice or even support the claim that things are better without him.

[BeAChooser]

Hmmmm ... the dispair of the democRATS seems a bit at odds with this:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/933bmtiu.asp


Iraq's Benchmarks
Who's Moving the goalposts now?
by Frederick W. Kagan
04/03/2008

AS THE REDUCTION IN violence in Iraq has become incontestable (the insistence of early critics that no such reduction was possible notwithstanding), war opponents have fallen back on their next line of defense--that the military progress has not been matched by the political progress it was supposed to enable. This talking point, however, is also outdated and invalid.

... snip ...

But critics have long dismissed these developments on the grounds that they meant nothing if the central government did not meet the key benchmarks established in 2007 as the basis for continued American support.

... snip ...

As a recent study (http://www.usip.org/pubs/usipeace_briefings/2008/0319_iraqi_politics.html ) by the U.S. Institute of Peace noted, "It may be that February 13, 2008 will be remembered as the day when Iraq's political climate began to catch up with its improved security situation--or, more to the point, when Iraqi leaders discovered the key to political compromise and reconciliation."

As the tally below shows, the Government of Iraq has now met 12 out of the original 18 benchmarks set for it, including four out of the six key legislative benchmarks. It has made substantial progress on five more, and only one remains truly stalled. One can argue about the scoring of this or that benchmark, but the overall picture is very clear: before the surge began, the Iraqi Government had accomplished none of the benchmarks and was on the way to accomplishing very few. As the surge winds down, it has accomplished around two-thirds of them and is moving ahead on almost all of the remainder.

See the link for a detailed description of what is done and not done. The surge has worked and liberals just can't stand it. Not that they don't have enough problems as it is with democRATS showing their true colors in the battle being waged between Hillary and Obama. :)

[Skeptic Ginger]

Before the Iraq invasion, Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, said there was no evidence the Shiites and the Sunnis would break down into fighting a civil war. His magazine reflects that degree of inaccuracy about a lot of things.

Why not try a more direct source of information like the hearings this week on this matter before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Several retired generals testified today in advance of Petraeus testifying next week.

Here's Lt General Odom's opening statement. (http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/testimony/2008/OdomTestimony080402a.pdf)Last year I rejected the claim that it was a new strategy. Rather, I said, it is a new tactic used to achieve the same old strategic aim, political stability. And I foresaw no serious prospects for success. I see no reason to change my judgment now. The surge is prolonging instability, not creating the conditions for unity as the president claims.
Last year, General Petraeus wisely declined to promise a military solution to this political problem, saying that he could lower the level of violence, allowing a limited time for the Iraqi leaders to strike a political deal. Violence has been temporarily reduced but today there is credible evidence that the political situation is far more fragmented. And currently we see violence surge in Baghdad and Basra. In fact, it has also remained sporadic and significant in several other parts of Iraq over the past year, notwithstanding the notable drop in Baghdad and Anbar Province. More disturbing, Prime Minister Maliki has initiated military action and then dragged in US forces to help his own troops destroy his Shiite competitors. This is a political setback, not a political solution. Such is the result of the surge tactic.It goes on from there with additional examples of how the surge is not working.

The other two generals had similar opinions about the surge and the need to get out as things were not going to get better with us there.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here's a more factual report on the testimony that has been ongoing in the last few days:

Iraq Accountability Project - A Wrap-Up of This Week's Senate Oversight on Iraq
Saturday, April 05, 2008 (http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/1313601/)

I watched the generals' testimony on CSPAN and this is a fairly accurate account of what was said in the hearings.

[mrbaracuda]

So when did those generals retire?

[Skeptic Ginger]

So when did those generals retire?You'll have to show they have not kept up on the Iraq situation, they have not discussed things with all their active duty colleagues, they have no interest in following what is occurring since retiring, they didn't have a good enough command of the facts before retiring to know what to be watching for in terms of progress and so on. And you really need to show why Bill Kristol would be capable of knowing better what the situation was in Iraq than these 3 retired generals.

And you'll have to consider that since retiring, they are free to speak their mind publicly as opposed to Petraeus who is hamstrung by the appearances he must keep up.

Did any of you catch Juan Williams, known right leaning political analyst, on FAUX News accusing Bill Kristol of being a less than objective "Bush cheerleader" today? Neocons eating their own is a good sign. ;)

[mrbaracuda]

Nice way to answer a simple question, lol.

Oh wait. :rolleyes:

[SezMe]

Hmmmm ... the dispair of the democRATS seems a bit at odds with this:
That's so childish.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Nice way to answer a simple question, lol.

Oh wait. :rolleyes:You mean because I anticipated the pointless point you were trying to make and addressed it before you could make it? You need merely address your original point that somehow being retired meant the three generals were not giving informed opinions.

But you can't address that point and you most certainly cannot support the claim, Bill Kristol, known erroneous opinion giver on the subject of Iraq, could possibly be more informed than these generals. Bill Kristol was never even in the military now was he? See for yourself.

Who served? (http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html)

This is interesting.Punditocracy and Preacher-types (See also Media Whores Online)

* George Will, did not serve
* Chris Matthews, Mediawhore, did not serve. (However, apparently served in the Peace Corps.)
* Bill O'Reilly, did not serve
* Paul Gigot, did not serve.
* Bill Bennett, Did not serve
* Pat Buchanan, did not serve
* Rush Limbaugh, did not serve (4-F with a 'pilonidal cyst' [see "The Rush Limbaugh Story" by Paul D. Colford, St. Martin's Press, 1993, Chapter 2: Beating the Draft.])
* Michael Savage (aka Michael Alan Weiner) - did not serve, too busy chasing herbs and botany degrees in Hawaii and Fiji
* John Wayne, did not serve
* Pat Robertson - claimed during 1986 campaign to be a "combat veteran." In reality, was a "Liquor Officer."
* Bill Kristol, did not serve
* Sean Hannity, did not serve.
* Kenneth Starr, did not serve
* Antonin Scalia, did not serve
* Clarence Thomas, did not serve
* Ralph Reed, did not serve
* Michael Medved, did not serve
* Charlie Daniels, did not serve
* Ted Nugent, did not serve
* Country Singer Toby Keith, did not serve. (1)
* Radio Host Phil Hendrie, did not serve.

* Ollie North - Convicted in the Iran-Contra scandal, at least he served.
* Charlton Heston - served in WWII, but went AWOL when Michael Moore asked him some tough questions.
* Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Association - did not serve (apparently pulled lottery #97 in 1969 as a campus radical at SUNY-Albany, but weaseled out by getting a family doctor to claim he had a nervous disorder).

* James Carville, a.k.a. "Corporal Cueball" - Served in the United States Marine Corps, 1966-'68. (1)
* Markos Moulitsas, a.k.a. "Kos" (leading liberal blogger) - Served in the United States Army, 1989-'92. (1)
* Randi Rhodes - enlisted in the United States Air Force in 1977 and worked stateside as a mechanic in Texas, achieving the rank of Airman First Class. (link) Not sure what to make of the Charlton Heston comment.

[President Bush]

Punditocracy and Preacher-types (See also Media Whores Online)

* George Will, did not serve
* Chris Matthews, Mediawhore, did not serve. (However, apparently served in the Peace Corps.)
* Bill O'Reilly, did not serve
* Paul Gigot, did not serve.
* Bill Bennett, Did not serve
* Pat Buchanan, did not serve
* Rush Limbaugh, did not serve (4-F with a 'pilonidal cyst' [see "The Rush Limbaugh Story" by Paul D. Colford, St. Martin's Press, 1993, Chapter 2: Beating the Draft.])
* Michael Savage (aka Michael Alan Weiner) - did not serve, too busy chasing herbs and botany degrees in Hawaii and Fiji
* John Wayne, did not serve
* Pat Robertson - claimed during 1986 campaign to be a "combat veteran." In reality, was a "Liquor Officer."
* Bill Kristol, did not serve
* Sean Hannity, did not serve.
* Kenneth Starr, did not serve
* Antonin Scalia, did not serve
* Clarence Thomas, did not serve
* Ralph Reed, did not serve
* Michael Medved, did not serve
* Charlie Daniels, did not serve
* Ted Nugent, did not serve
* Country Singer Toby Keith, did not serve. (1)
* Radio Host Phil Hendrie, did not serve.

* Ollie North - Convicted in the Iran-Contra scandal, at least he served.
* Charlton Heston - served in WWII, but went AWOL when Michael Moore asked him some tough questions.
* Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Association - did not serve (apparently pulled lottery #97 in 1969 as a campus radical at SUNY-Albany, but weaseled out by getting a family doctor to claim he had a nervous disorder).

* James Carville, a.k.a. "Corporal Cueball" - Served in the United States Marine Corps, 1966-'68. (1)
* Markos Moulitsas, a.k.a. "Kos" (leading liberal blogger) - Served in the United States Army, 1989-'92. (1)
* Randi Rhodes - enlisted in the United States Air Force in 1977 and worked stateside as a mechanic in Texas, achieving the rank of Airman First Class. (link)


Hey, the 102 was not being phased out of Vietnam service. Wait... you didn't mention me? Uh, forget it!

[Skeptic Ginger]

Hey, the 102 was not being phased out of Vietnam service. Wait... you didn't mention me? Uh, forget it!Bush is on the web site. This is just the section on pundits.

[Cincinnatus]

That's so childish.

"FAUX News"

^ and that's not?

[SezMe]

"FAUX News"

^ and that's not?
Oh, right. I forgot. Two wrongs do make a right. No need for you to rise above the crap because someone else does not.

[WildCat]

Well here we are, Joe Biden's big day! No doubt he's been anxiously awaiting this day for months, another day that's all about him!

Oh, what's that, you thought this was Petraeus's day? Watch and learn, see how Biden's "questions" will amount to 5 minutes of pontificating, culminating in a loaded question of the "have you stopped beating your wife" variety.

Because petty politics is what's really important here. I'd love to be proved wrong, but I've seen these dog and pony shows too often before to put my money on the integrity of the US Congress.

[mrbaracuda]

[..yadda yadda..]

Still not answering my simple question I see. :rolleyes:
You know what? Forget it.

[President Bush]

This is just the section on pundits.


Pundit? Damn near Bennett.

[Skeptic Ginger]

"FAUX News"

^ and that's not?Habit. But I am not SezMe.

The fabricated news on Fox is well documented.

Is this distraction from the thread helping your case?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Still not answering my simple question I see. :rolleyes:
You know what? Forget it.
I doubt many non-Bush apologists fail to see that I very clearly answered it and you continue with this avoidance approach.

You cannot make your point now. My answer does not prevent you from making that point now does it? My answer does however take away the value of the point you were trying to make.

[Skeptic Ginger]

...Shiites outnumber Sunnis in Iraq and al-Qaeda is mostly a Sunni group. The Sunnis getting the most attention right now for militant resistance are loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr, not Bin Laden....Correction, I do know Muqtada is a Shiite and misspoke here, not to mention the bizarre grammatical construction of that second sentence.

I don't know if it is better to never review a thread and feel blissfully perfect or to find and correct these imperfections in the ever continual aim to actually reach perfection. ;)

[Father Dagon]

Not true at all! It's also a completely different strategy - for example, troops are no longer confined to a few large military bases but are spread out in many smaller bases to keep a more constant presence in problem areas. It also entails seeking the cooperation (and in many cases getting it) of insurgents and turning them to our side of the conflict. In many cases, US soldiers are fighting side by side with Iraqis who once fought them.

That the deaths among Iraqis and troops have gone down is indisputable, what needs to happen is for the Iraqis to take advantage of this situation and get the political process moving. Unfortunately, Petraeus can't do that for them.That's really smart! As if the US would've cooperated with germans and japanese who didn't have the decency to admit defeat.

I doubt that Iraq will be a decent place before Turkey joins EU (wich will make Iraq more of a problem for EU to solve.)

[Skeptic Ginger]

Now that I have posted that sidetrack, here is a post I was working on related to sidetracks as a way of avoiding looking at the facts one doesn't like.

So we have a lot of people avoiding the actual issues here by transparent tactics that highlight the fact they are unable to discuss the painful facts.

WildCat is trying to attack the messenger, Joe Biden. Must mean WC cannot address the fact the surge really is failing in everything except lowering the level of violence in Iraq. Trouble is that cannot be sustained and that was supposed to be a means to an end. That end is no closer, a year into the surge. It's duly noted that WC never claimed more than reducing violence was being achieved, but that ignores the goal of reducing the violence.

Mrbaracuda thought he'd be able to discredit last week's testimony of three retired generals by simply claiming they were out of the loop since they are retired. But that fact alone in no way discredits their expertise and current knowledge of the facts. I suggested he point to additional evidence the generals' expertise and current knowledge of the situation was lacking and all he could do was try to pretend I had not answered his point.

BeAChooser posted an article from the Weekly standard claiming falsely that benchmarks were indeed being met and progress was indeed occurring since the surge. Last week's testimony by the 3 generals contradicts that claim and was specific about why the surge was failing.

I pointed out that even the right wing commentator on Fox News, Juan Williams, accused the editor of the Weekly Standard of being a Bush cheerleader and not being factual. I also pointed out that Kristol made a gross error in the past claiming the Sunnis and Shiites would not start a civil war with each other.

BeAChooser has yet to provide further more credible evidence these "benchmarks" were indeed being met.

Not everything has been evasive and sidetracks. Those are just the most blatant ones here avoiding addressing the actual arguments.

Tsukasa Buddha and Darth Rotor have posted things much more honest. So it is possible for intelligent analysis to come from the right a different point of view than mine which I consider to be moderately to the left. ;)

[SezMe]

Oh, what's that, you thought this was Petraeus's day? Watch and learn, see how Biden's "questions" will amount to 5 minutes of pontificating, culminating in a loaded question of the "have you stopped beating your wife" variety.
You may be right but he won't be able to break Sen. Boxer's unassailable record that happened (I think) at a previous Iraq hearing. She spent her ENTIRE time allotment bloviating and had to submit her questions in written form.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sorry, I do edit a bit at the end of most of my posts.

[prewitt81]

Off-topic discussion split to: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=110866

[Skeptic Ginger]

Thanks, prewitt81. :D I did want to comment and didn't want to derail. Post 84 needed moving as well. I copied it to the new thread. And 83 since that was the post 84 answered.

[prewitt81]

Thanks, prewitt81. :D I did want to comment and didn't want to derail. Post 84 needed moving as well. I copied it to the new thread. And 83 since that was the post 84 answered.

Right you are. Off they go.

[BeAChooser]

Skeptigrl, I'm shocked to learn you believe the SENATE DEMOCRATIC COMMUNICATIONS CENTER is a unbiased source of information. :D

Don't like the Weekly Standard? Well you'll love this one. :D

From http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Yzg3OWIwM2I1ODlkMDU2MGY4YjgwMWZmMTYyYWZlZjU%3D "Rich Lowry, NR editor, April 8, 2008"

It is routinely asserted that only a handful of the benchmarks have been met. In Newsweek in March, columnist Fareed Zakaria darkly noted that a few newly passed laws “add up to only three or four of the 18 benchmarks.”

The benchmarks are much cited, but apparently little read. Of the 18, seven have to do with supporting the surge and the effort to establish security in Baghdad: things like providing three brigades to support operations in the city; establishing joint security stations with U.S. forces in neighborhoods; and reducing sectarian violence and eliminating militia control of local security.

By any standard, almost all these security benchmarks have been met. They were formulated at a time when the Iraqi government’s will to secure Baghdad was in question. Forget three brigades — as Fred Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute points out, soon enough the Iraqis will have three divisions in and around Baghdad. The neutralization of militias has been more problematic, but now Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has declared himself against the most dangerous Shia militia, Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi army.

The highest-profile benchmarks are the seven legislative ones. Four of the key ones have been passed: a law undoing the excesses of de-Baathification; a provision granting amnesty to former insurgents; legislation allowing the formation of semiautonomous regions; and measures setting out provincial powers and a date for provincial elections. Another important one, a hydrocarbons law, is stalled, but the passage of a budget sharing oil revenues around the country serves some of the same function.

The balance of the other benchmarks has to do with the performance of the Iraqi government and protecting minority rights. They are harder to evaluate. [b]Of course, all the grading is somewhat subjective, but roughly 12 of the 18 benchmarks have been met (and there’s been movement on the others), which makes a much less seductive anti-war talking point.

And if you don't believe them ... how about this quote by Senator Jim Inhofe, senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee:


“I returned just last week from my most recent trip to Iraq, where I met with Lt. Gen. Lloyd Austin, Commander Multi-National Corps – Iraq, and was briefed on the current situation. Overall violence in Iraq has decreased dramatically over the past year and American casualties have decreased by 70% since January 2007. The Iraqis have also made significant progress on the political front, as the increased security provided by the surge has enabled the Government of Iraq to meet 12 out of the original 18 benchmarks, including four out of the six key legislative benchmarks.


Or are you going to call him a liar, too?

:D

[Skeptic Ginger]

If you have an objection to the facts in the source I posted, then by all means note it an provide something supporting your point. I may have grabbed a quick source off Google of information I already knew to be supportable factually, (however I can't find the post you are referring to).

When I pointed out the Weekly Standard source you posted was not supportable, I posted the evidence why: Kristol's reputation for error, the generals contradictory evidence, and Juan Williams comments that Kristol was cheer leading the President rather than reporting facts.

I'll address the rest of your post in the next post.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I heard much of Patreaus and Ambassador Crocker's testimony yesterday and they certainly couldn't point to much progress. The supposed benchmarks Lowry is referring to haven't gotten us any closer to leaving Iraq. Patreaus and Crocker both were unable to articulate any progress other than decreased violence to which Patreaus then pointed out the gains were extremely fragile.

So I ask you, BeAC, not to cite an editorial opinion piece, but to point to something in the Congressional testimony yesterday that suggests we are any closer to leaving Iraq than we were a year ago.

[mrbaracuda]

Mrbaracuda thought he'd be able to discredit last week's testimony of three retired generals by simply claiming they were out of the loop since they are retired. But that fact alone in no way discredits their expertise and current knowledge of the facts.

You really are an arrogant little ****, aren't you? It was a simple question you still haven't addressed. Then again, since you started to piss me off, I let it go. I didn't claim anything, I didn't try to claim anything but I guess in your fancy world simple questions from foreigners about people you like to cite just have to be transformed into something else than they are.

I suggested he point to additional evidence the generals' expertise and current knowledge of the situation was lacking and all he could do was try to pretend I had not answered his point.

Try to pretend? You still haven't answered it to this day. How about answering a simple question the next time and see what happens? Seriously, you start pissing me off. :covereyes

Attack the argument, not the arguer.

[SezMe]

And if you don't believe them ... how about this quote by Senator Jim Inhofe, senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee:

“I returned just last week from my most recent trip to Iraq, where I met with Lt. Gen. Lloyd Austin, Commander Multi-National Corps – Iraq, and was briefed on the current situation. Overall violence in Iraq has decreased dramatically over the past year and American casualties have decreased by 70% since January 2007. The Iraqis have also made significant progress on the political front, as the increased security provided by the surge has enabled the Government of Iraq to meet 12 out of the original 18 benchmarks, including four out of the six key legislative benchmarks.

Or are you going to call him a liar, too?

:D
Why the big grin? Yes, I am going to call Inhofe a liar.

James Inhofe (R-OK) is a liar.

2007 was the deadliest year for USA combat troops in Iraq.

[Ziggurat]

James Inhofe (R-OK) is a liar.

2007 was the deadliest year for USA combat troops in Iraq.

Your statement doesn't actually contradict Inhofe's statement, so why are you calling him a liar? Combat tempo increased with the surge (that was part of the point: put more boots on the ground so we could perform more operations), and so fatality rates initially increased. By the end of the year, that rate had decreased significantly from what it was at the beginning of the year.