Surge Failure?

[E.J.Armstrong]

Is this a sign of the 'Surge's' success or failure or does it not have any implications either way?

'Hundreds of US diplomats have protested against a government move to force them to accept postings in war-torn Iraq.
About 300 angry diplomats attended a meeting at the state department, at which one labelled the decision a "potential death sentence".'

from

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7072047.stm

[Tailgater]

I would say no implications. The entire civilian population could be at peace and I still wouldn't want to work at the embassy (in any middle eastern country really).

My concerns would be centered on safety around the embassy itself and not Iraq as a whole.

[Darth Rotor]

Is this a sign of the 'Surge's' success or failure or does it not have any implications either way?

'Hundreds of US diplomats have protested against a government move to force them to accept postings in war-torn Iraq.
About 300 angry diplomats attended a meeting at the state department, at which one labelled the decision a "potential death sentence".'

from

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7072047.stm
I'd offer that the problem has been the entire handling of the war, post June 2003, which would also include what is going on now, during the surge, and the Embassy being, in so many words, Fort Apache, Baghdad.

State has had a fine share of detractors on the Iraq War, since before it began. Two highly placed deputies of Powell resigned over it, before the war began.

What the US embassy is, if one looks at it tactically, is a collection point for targets of truck bombers. I think some of the folks at State are seeing things very clearly, and none too pleased that a posting in a war zone is offered to them.

DR

[rjh01]

I do not think the US should be sending in career diplomats to Iraq. They should send in as many politicians as they can. The USA should not provide any security for them. Either they make Iraq peaceful or they get killed. Either way the USA is better off.

[Beerina]

I'd feel OK deep in the Green Zone, but that's about it.

Maybe in 20 years if Iraq is stable, and the local warlords have been diverted into profiting from tourism would it be safe to wander around as an American.

[Cain]

I'd offer that the problem has been the entire handling of the war, post June 2003, which would also include what is going on now, during the surge, and the Embassy being, in so many words, Fort Apache, Baghdad.

A new documentary came out this week on DVD called NO END IN SIGHT. He gets interviews with a lot of important players (Jay Garner, Larry Wilkerson, others) on the disastrous handling of post-war operations. It's a methodical, non-hysterical dissection of what went wrong.

http://imdb.com/title/tt0912593/

[Darth Rotor]

A new documentary came out this week on DVD called NO END IN SIGHT. He gets interviews with a lot of important players (Jay Garner, Larry Wilkerson, others) on the disastrous handling of post-war operations. It's a methodical, non-hysterical dissection of what went wrong.

http://imdb.com/title/tt0912593/

I hope it comes to a theater near me, looks interesting. Thanks for the tip. :)

DR

[hgc]

But it can't be! Saint Petraus descended from Olympus to the halls of Congress to tell us so!

[Darth Rotor]

But it can't be! Saint Petraus descended from Olympus to the halls of Congress to tell us so!

Did you watch the briefings?

DR

[hgc]

Did you watch the briefings?

DR


Next best thing - read the transcripts.

[Darth Rotor]

Next best thing - read the transcripts.
OK.

The picture Ambassador Crocker and the General painted was hardly boundless optimism. I found a lot of the post-brief commentary to be at odds with what I heard and saw, though mostly heard, I was multi tasking at the time.

Anyway, I'd like to hear another brief in January, since the modest "trend line" presented in the brief that depicted attack decreases (pre autumn, when things typically get heated up over there, if one checks previous years) to be a very thin slice of hope for things improving, but perhaps info taken over a longer time frame coincident to this Surge would be more useful as an objective measure.

Trouble is, if you think you can define success with "objective measures" you fall into the infamous Robert MacNamara trap of self delusion. Remember Viet Nam?

"By every objective measure, we are winning the war."

Uh, right, Bob, that misses the point of what war is. :p

DR

[hgc]

OK.

The picture Ambassador Crocker and the General painted was hardly boundless optimism. I found a lot of the post-brief commentary to be at odds with what I heard and saw, though mostly heard, I was multi tasking at the time.

Anyway, I'd like to hear another brief in January, since the modest "trend line" presented in the brief that depicted attack decreases (pre autumn, when things typically get heated up over there, if one checks previous years) to be a very thin slice of hope for things improving, but perhaps info taken over a longer time frame coincident to this Surge would be more useful as an objective measure.

Trouble is, if you think you can define success with "objective measures" you fall into the infamous Robert MacNamara trap of self delusion. Remember Viet Nam?

"By every objective measure, we are winning the war."

Uh, right, Bob, that misses the point of what war is. :p

DR


This is worth pulling specific quotes, which I will do later when I have time.

I believe that the Petraus/Crocker show was designed to give political cover to maintaining the current policy, and not to reporting honestly what is happening in Iraq. A number of GOP senators had made statements in the Spring that September was make-or-break decision time for the surge policy and for the Iraq occupation to boot. If these senators didn't want to look like the pusilanimous pussyfooters that they are, they needed to at least be given a glimmer of hope and the we'll only fail if you stop us from trying meme.

Interestingly, in September the administration was busy claiming that benchmarks of objective measure were unreasonable, after making much hay last Spring that the Iraqi government must meet certain defined benchmarks or we'll ... something. Bush: for benchmarks before he was against them.

If objectives aren't measurable, they're not objectives.

[Darth Rotor]

This is worth pulling specific quotes, which I will do later when I have time.
Not sure why, but lay on, MacDuff. :)
I believe that the Petraus/Crocker show was designed to give political cover to maintaining the current policy, and not to reporting honestly what is happening in Iraq.
By the time the brief was over, it was obvious to me that the message was "we need a year, at least for this to work" and the modest draw downs in the short term seemed to me to be oversold as "force reductions" when the real numbers on the screen showed the surge to last, go figure, about 12-15 months.

A number of GOP senators had made statements in the Spring that September was make-or-break decision time for the surge policy and for the Iraq occupation to boot. If these senators didn't want to look like the pusilanimous pussyfooters that they are, they needed to at least be given a glimmer of hope and the we'll only fail if you stop us from trying meme.
So you'll crap on General P for the sake of the suits? Why?
Interestingly, in September the administration was busy claiming that benchmarks of objective measure were unreasonable, after making much hay last Spring that the Iraqi government must meet certain defined benchmarks or we'll ... something. Bush: for benchmarks before he was against them.
Indeed, the pre briefing information campaign was underway well before September. The brief was almost anticlimactic.
If objectives aren't measurable, they're not objectives.
I agree, but please revisit the MacNamara quote.

You don't win a war numerically, you win it when your enemy quits fighting, and/or you have achieved your victory conditions.

The former isn't true as of today, and the latter remain somewhat nebulous as of this writing.

DR