Is the surge really responsible for improvements in Iraq?

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 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 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.

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 ...

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 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.

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.

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.

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 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.