Is the surge really responsible for improvements in Iraq?

cubbieblue82

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/09/09/ware.qanda/index.html?iref=topnews


McCain's greatest argument for good judgement may not be as important as he and Bush would have you believe.

I've seen this opinion put forth by many others who have been on the ground in Iraq as well. There are other factors that have occurred in Iraq alongside, but independent of, the surge.

Particularly for the decrease of violence in Baghdad, it seems that partitioning the city (a nice way of saying segregating) to keep clashing factions from easily getting to one another is perhaps more important.

Also, DIPLOMACY was used to bring people like al-Sadr on board with the US, or at least to keep him from using his followers to stir up violence.

inmytree

cubbieblue82 wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/09/09/ware.qanda/index.html?iref=topnews


McCain's greatest argument for good judgement may not be as important as he and Bush would have you believe.

I've seen this opinion put forth by many others who have been on the ground in Iraq as well. There are other factors that have occurred in Iraq alongside, but independent of, the surge.

Particularly for the decrease of violence in Baghdad, it seems that partitioning the city (a nice way of saying segregating) to keep clashing factions from easily getting to one another is perhaps more important.

Also, DIPLOMACY was used to bring people like al-Sadr on board with the US, or at least to keep him from using his followers to stir up violence.

but...but....

Obama was "wrong" about the surge....damn it....the war hero sez so....

know1

It's pretty hard to deny that it's at least been a significant factor.

inmytree

know1 wrote:

It's pretty hard to deny that it's at least been a significant factor.

perhaps, but I wonder, if the "surge" has worked, why are troop levels staying basically the same...?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080909/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq

cubbieblue82

know1 wrote:

It's pretty hard to deny that it's at least been a significant factor.

Not denying it is a factor, but McCain/Bush are portraying it as if it is the single reason for the turn around in violence in Iraq. That is a gross over-exaggeration according to many reports.

It is important because McCain is touting it as clear evidence of his great judgement, even in the face of public opinion. In fact, although he supported the surge, he publicly waffled about his hope for its success during numerous interviews at the time.

mammasan

cubbieblue82 wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/09/09/ware.qanda/index.html?iref=topnews


McCain's greatest argument for good judgement may not be as important as he and Bush would have you believe.

I've seen this opinion put forth by many others who have been on the ground in Iraq as well. There are other factors that have occurred in Iraq alongside, but independent of, the surge.

Particularly for the decrease of violence in Baghdad, it seems that partitioning the city (a nice way of saying segregating) to keep clashing factions from easily getting to one another is perhaps more important.

Also, DIPLOMACY was used to bring people like al-Sadr on board with the US, or at least to keep him from using his followers to stir up violence.

I don't know if one could say that the surge was the sole reason for the ground situation there but it definitely can't be discounted as a major reason for the improvement.

digster

As far as I understand it, the surge was meant to decrease the violence that was impeding the ability of the burgeoning government to operate successfully and for there to be compromises and coalitions formed once stability was reached. There's no doubt the violence has abated, so what remains to be seen is if political steps forward can be taken, if the Iraqi military can begin to sustain itself, i.e. Iraq needs to take the steps to make our occupation a waste of time. I haven't really seen that yet. I guess the trick will be when the troops start coming home from the "surge"; we'll see if Iraqi insurgents were simply treading water till we left, or if they were really defeated.

The Republicans this year have been very good at dulling one of Obama's best arguments, i.e. that he, unlike McCain opposed the Iraq war from the start. In what should be a referendum on the war in Iraq, the Republicans have spun it into a referendum on the surge, on which McCain stands on sturdier ground.

jimed14

so, Pres Bush just announced that there will be a reduction in troops of about 8,000 as of February. And that there's the idea that some additional troops may be redeployed to Afghanistan.

Obama just spoke and pretty much grilled the administration (one that John Mccain supports) stating that the Bush administration has offcially "kicked the can" to the next administration, that this is indeed proof that they have not and will not have a comprehensive plan to set a timetable to put this war to an end for the U.S. ... a misplaced war, as, Iraq was never where leaders of Al Qaeda or the Taliban ever were ...

Again, while the surge has "worked behind our wildest dreams" as Obama stated on O'Reilly's show ... the point remains that the initial goals of the surge have not been met. It's working, but, it's NOT complete.

so ... Obama is talking about this ...

... we now return you to the McCain Palin campaign ... I'm sure they are talking about pitbulls and lipstick, moose burgers, and a P.O.W.s past from over 30 years ago ...

Strangest Tribe

Actually the so-called surge and decreasing insurgency parallels the heated movement within the States to pull out troops....

news travels faster than thousands of troops.

After this election if we don't proceed to leave like we promise, watch the insurgency get worse....

know1

Maybe the violence has slowed down because the insurgents are hopeful that the troops will all be removed quickly and are saving their energy for the time when there isn't a strong military presence in the area.

cubbieblue82

know1 wrote:

Maybe the violence has slowed down because the insurgents are hopeful that the troops will all be removed quickly and are saving their energy for the time when there isn't a strong military presence in the area.

So would you propose that we remain indefinitely in case they might be saving themselves? What other way of determining our progress do we have then to look at sectarian violence?

What you are saying is certainly possible, but does that mean we should just stay forever?

know1

cubbieblue82 wrote:

So would you propose that we remain indefinitely in case they might be saving themselves? What other way of determining our progress do we have then to look at sectarian violence?

What you are saying is certainly possible, but does that mean we should just stay forever?

I'm not proposing anything other than saying that I'd prefer for us to be as certain of the stability of the country before we pull out and possibly leave the citizens at the mercy of whomever wants to blow stuff up.

In other words, not compound the problem we've already created.

cincybearcat

inmytree wrote:

perhaps, but I wonder, if the "surge" has worked, why are troop levels staying basically the same...?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080909/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq

Didn't Bush just announce getting thousands of troops out of Iraq...and into Afghanastan?

unsung

jimed14 wrote:

... we now return you to the McCain Palin campaign ... I'm sure they are talking about pitbulls and lipstick, moose burgers, and a P.O.W.s past from over 30 years ago ...

This just in...

Obama's shady real estate deals with Rezko, his failed attempt at running slum housing, his pastor Wright, his friend Ayers, oh and his own Veep nominee said he doesn't have enough experience.

See it works both ways.

digster

unsung wrote:

This just in...

Obama's shady real estate deals with Rezko, his failed attempt at running slum housing, his pastor Wright, his friend Ayers, oh and his own Veep nominee said he doesn't have enough experience.

See it works both ways.

It looks to me like what he was referring to was the McCain campaign's unwillingness to focus on issues; where in there did he bring up anything shady from McCain's past?

brandon10

cincybearcat wrote:

Didn't Bush just announce getting thousands of troops out of Iraq...and into Afghanastan?

So it looks like Bush likes Obama's plans.

jimed14

digster wrote:

It looks to me like what he was referring to was the McCain campaign's unwillingness to focus on issues; where in there did he bring up anything shady from McCain's past?

*exactly*

I didn't say anything about the Keating 5, leaving his first wife, or Palin's kids ...

I spoke about what Obama said today about Bush's plan ... and that ... McCain and Palin have not changed their speech once since the convention ... the same old speech, with no plans for the future of this country what so ever.

jimed14

unsung wrote:

This just in...

Obama's shady real estate deals with Rezko, his failed attempt at running slum housing, his pastor Wright, his friend Ayers, oh and his own Veep nominee said he doesn't have enough experience.

See it works both ways.

you completely distorted my post ...

cubbieblue82

jimed14 wrote:

McCain and Palin have not changed their speech once since the convention ... the same old speech, with no plans for the future of this country what so ever.

Seriously... Does no one realize that they are literally repeating the same exact lines verbatim at all speeches.

What the hell does McCain mean when he says he will "cut taxes where he can" ? That could mean anything. Palin keeps repeating the same lies about the bridge to nowhere as well.

Just pathetic to think people are lapping this shit up. :mad:

brandon10

cubbieblue82 wrote:

Seriously... Does no one realize that they are literally repeating the same exact lines verbatim at all speeches.

What the hell does McCain mean when he says he will "cut taxes where he can" ? That could mean anything. Palin keeps repeating the same lies about the bridge to nowhere as well.

Just pathetic to think people are lapping this shit up. :mad:

Yea, I agree. It's just so bloody obvious. Could the American public really be that dumb? And I see some of the media is finally starting to call them on it.

jimed14

cincybearcat wrote:

Didn't Bush just announce getting thousands of troops out of Iraq...and into Afghanastan?

8,000 are coming home in Feb, not to be replaced ... and troops that were heading out to Iraq will now be shifted to Afghanistan.

cubbieblue82

jimed14 wrote:

8,000 are coming home in Feb, not to be replaced ... and troops that were heading out to Iraq will now be shifted to Afghanistan.

It's amazing how Bush seems to be gradually adopting policies Obama has been calling for for some time now. John McCain and his 100 year occupation are going to be left in the dust. (I HOPE)

jimed14

cubbieblue82 wrote:

It's amazing how Bush seems to be gradually adopting policies Obama has been calling for for some time now. John McCain and his 100 year occupation are going to be left in the dust. (I HOPE)

it's a valid point.

and one reason why McCain has totally backed off on the experience issue in regards to Obama ... because, what Obama was saying they outght to do ... concentrate on the terror networks in Pakistan and Afganistan ... is what they are doing. Obama was ahead of the curve on this issue.

Strangest Tribe

don't you see...????

It's all Karl Rove hoodoo.

The republicans aren't going to change. It's just a trick to get the votes of the Hillary fence sitters and the fence sitters that don't want to vote for a black man.

If McCain can align himself with the change racists and the Bushies can change the Iraq war playbook then everyone leaning one way or the other is given an amusing magic trick.

After the smoke and mirror gig they go back to business as usual.

cincybearcat

brandon10 wrote:

So it looks like Bush likes Obama's plans.

I bet he likes the General's plans better...in all honesty, I'm sure there is some politicing going on...but also, it seems that starting with the surge, the admin began to listen to the people on the ground...and that's when things got better.

jimed14

cincybearcat wrote:

I bet he likes the General's plans better...in all honesty, I'm sure their is some politicing going on...but also, it seems that starting with the surge, the admin began to listen to the people on the ground...and that's when things got better.

agreed, Obama's plans for the war were certianly more pronounced and detailed after he came back from Iraq and had his discussion with General Petraeus.