The Surge

[Funkmasterr]

Listen asshole, I have spoken what I think on this topic as has everyone else here. If you want to beat the dead horse be my fucking guest, but don't you dare whine about me pointing out how much of an idiot you are when I get bored with the goddamn topic. I liked you calling me ignorant in the other thread too since I don't believe what you do, what a shining example of intelligence and wisdom you are.

Can someone remind me of how to ignore someone, cause I seriously can't deal with this fuck anymore.

The thing is, You actually are ignorant in the other thread, but simply refuse to admit it, the evidence is linked to you there. Don't blame me if it makes you feel retarded. I'll even be nice about it and rephrase: You are mistaken in the issues you discussed and the evidence is linked to you, hopefully you will change your mind and admit that, but I doubt it.

I hope I widnt huwt yuo feewings too much.

By all means go for ignore, I won't miss you. Unfortunately I know you'll be back, just like the whole "I am so out of here girlfriend ummm hummm" crap earlier this month.

Whatever you say sir.. If I ignore you I'll forget about you soon enough, all you do is piss me off anyhow. Haven't you specifically called me out for stating opinions as fact? Funny considering you do it constantly.

[Nick]

Ahh the ever popular cop out "opinion!=fact" argument. Man you really have run out of bullets here. Cya!

[Sueven]

For discussion: Is page 3 of this thread the most worthless full page of any thread in VV history?

Boogahz' explanation of the value of displacing violence is good enough for me. It's valuable for other reasons as well, but I feel like that's the gist of it.

This thread has turned straight up retarded so I'm pretty much done participating in it. No promises or anything, but it doesn't seem like a worthwhile one to keep posting in.

Parting thoughts:

- The fact that a big attack just occurred really is irrelevant to the question of whether the surge is working. It's not like our strategy is "we'll put more troops on the ground and suddenly AQ and associated militants will no longer have the capability of carrying out terrorism, omgz"

- I think it's clear that areas of Iraq (including areas of Baghdad) which were previously violent are now nonviolent. Unfortunately I'm not willing to source this, because I'm busy for at least the next few days and am not going to spend the time to sort through everything I've read over the past few months to find enough evidence to build a reasonable case. I would suggest that if you have not seen any evidence that some areas are pacifying, you may want to revisit the neutrality of the sources you're consulting and diversify your news input a bit. I may post a thread on this issue later, when I have time to look into it more.

- The war took like 3 months. Managing the post-war violence and conducting nation-building is taking significantly longer. This is partially because these things take a long time, partially because our military forces were not properly constructed for the task (they're getting better but not there yet), and partially because some of those in charge of organizing the war made stupid decisions and held stupid beliefs. None of these things mean that SHIT EVERYTHING'S HOPELESS NOW IT'S BEEN FOUR YEARS AND IT'S STILL NOT A UTOPIA.

[Nick]

The fact that a big attack just occurred really is irrelevant to the question of whether the surge is working.

Why? How can it not be?

It's not like our strategy is "we'll put more troops on the ground and suddenly AQ and associated militants will no longer have the capability of carrying out terrorism, omgz"

That's actually pretty much exactly how it was marketed by the US administration.

- I think it's clear that areas of Iraq (including areas of Baghdad) which were previously violent are now nonviolent. Unfortunately I'm not willing to source this, because I'm busy for at least the next few days and am not going to spend the time to sort through everything I've read over the past few months to find enough evidence to build a reasonable case. I would suggest that if you have not seen any evidence that some areas are pacifying, you may want to revisit the neutrality of the sources you're consulting and diversify your news input a bit. I may post a thread on this issue later, when I have time to look into it more.

This is true, just as other places are more violent than ever (Basra). It doesn't really prove very much in favour of the surge working in the overall context of the state of the country. Which is, as we know, a complete and utter mess. One step forward, two steps back, as it were.

Ultimately, flaming aside, we both know the occupation was a mistake and we both know its virtually impossible to stop the civil war. I just think the Surge was a fucking joke from the get go.Given that the majority of Americans didnt even want the surge to happen in the first place, it would have been next to impossible to to send a realistic number of troops without a public outcry.

For it to have ever made a tangible difference, a whole lot more troops would have been needed. So what exactly is the point of it except to continue to pretend that progress is being made? It's lip service to progress, not actual progress. This isn't a new trend in regards to the occupation, its merely a continuation of the bullshit from before.

Most Americans agree. http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27022

It's my opinion that a pullout now would cause an incredible amount of bloodshed. It's also my opinion that if the occupation continues it will cause an incredible amount of bloodshed. So ultimately there's fuck all way around this, as everyone who isn't a moron knew in the first place. However, purely pragmatically, there are other issues, such as simply increasing the hatred against the US in the Middle East/Islamic world, wasting incredible amounts of money on useless insufficient experiments of nation building, increased risk of terrorist attacks on home soil (Coalition of the willing side that is) and general global disgust at the continued pointless occupation that the US would do well to consider.

None of these things mean that SHIT EVERYTHING'S HOPELESS NOW IT'S BEEN FOUR YEARS AND IT'S STILL NOT A UTOPIA.

I doubt you'd be so blase about it if this was the USA and not Iraq.

[masteen]

I have a surge... in my pants.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I have a surge... in my pants.

thx for the contribution, Cart II.

[Sueven]

Why? How can it not be?

Because of the next quoted sentence.

It's not like our strategy is "we'll put more troops on the ground and suddenly AQ and associated militants will no longer have the capability of carrying out terrorism, omgz"

We didn't cast a magic spell which caused all AQ's weapons to disappear. In fact, if the surge was working, you think they'd start taking their best shots in an attempt to fight back. Not that this proves that the surge is working, but it also certainly doesn't prove the reverse.

That's actually pretty much exactly how it was marketed by the US administration.

That's great, but even if that's true, it was absolutely not the point of the surge and you're not stupid enough to think it was.

Most Americans agree. http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27022

I think we've passed the point where we can cite opinion polls of Americans in order to attempt to prove facts about the world.

It's my opinion that a pullout now would cause an incredible amount of bloodshed. It's also my opinion that if the occupation continues it will cause an incredible amount of bloodshed.

There's your argument in a nutshell. It's reduced to an empirical question which neither of us have nearly the expertise or evidence to answer. Your collection of anti-war opinions, opinion polls and anecdotal evidence absolutely does not prove your position.

I doubt you'd be so blase about it if this was the USA and not Iraq.

No shit. I'd probably hold the same opinion far more strongly than I now do. My opinion at the moment is based on what I think the best thing to do is, all things considered (with heavy weight put on avoiding death). I'd probably be much more passionate about taking the steps that I think will result in the best outcome if it were my country we were talking about.

[Boogahz]

I was listening to an XM news channel on the way home from work yesterday, and they were quoting an article from a German magazine/newspaper. Because I was listening on XM, I could not see what publication the information came from (this was either CNN, CNN Headline News, FOX News, ABC News & Talk, or the BBC channel). The story was talking about Ramadhi (sp?) and the huge decrease in violence since "surge troops" began to arrive. They were quoting attacks numbering ~40 per day down to <1 per day. The publication was another "liberal" publication claiming surprise that the tactic was apparently working.

I thought this might be der tagesspiegel, but I did not see the reference come up again. It sounded like it was being read by Tony Snow, but I am not sure.

[Sueven]

Clinton said new tactics have brought some success against insurgents, particularly in Iraq's Anbar province.

"It's working. We're just years too late in changing our tactics," she said. "We can't ever let that happen again. We can't be fighting the last war. We have to keep preparing to fight the new war."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070820/ap_ ... dates_iraq

[Boogahz]

Did I just feel a piece of the sky fall?

[Zaelath]

Well, I hope that's true and not just stump speech rhetoric.

[Xatrei]

Personally, I believe that the surge is probably having a positive, military effect in the specific areas in which these forces are active. Unfortunately for us, this whole clusterfuck has never been about the efficiency and intensity of our military forces in action. The U.S. military is the best equipped, best trained and most hardcore on the planet (of course I'm somewhat biased as an Army veteran ) However, our military success in this fiasco is only a small component of the larger effort. Unfortunately, it is the non-military efforts that are the source of our ongoing failure in Iraq. Our military is trained and equipped to accomplish whatever military operation it is tasked to do, but the military cannot ensure the political solution required to stabilize Iraq and the region as a whole.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Well, I hope that's true and not just stump speech rhetoric.

Nods. But, how the hell can we ever tell what is and is not stump speech rhetoric?

[Sylvus]

Well, I hope that's true and not just stump speech rhetoric.

Nods. But, how the hell can we ever tell what is and is not stump speech rhetoric?

Why, by looking at the big picture, of course!

[Fash]

What a country we live in... it's spellbinding.

It's like last election... All anyone can do is say "THEY'RE DOING IT WRONG, I WILL DO BETTER"... no details... no promises.

I told you a long time ago... no matter who gets in, they are not going to pull out of iraq. The concept of an immediate pullout was only there to incite people into having extreme partisan feelings.

I'm pretty confident that Hillary will be the next president, even though that makes me sad... I can't see any of these fuckers doing a good job, except maybe ron paul and if you believe the mainstream media, "he doesn't have a chance."

Hillary is a decepticon... maybe that could replace flip-flopper, we can call her a transformer... she transforms her stance (and voice!) on issues to suit the audience and the day. Did I mention she murdered Vince Foster in the library with the candlestick?

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

You are delusional if you think Hitlery will win a presidential election. She may win the Dem bid, but that will only make for an easy Republican win. If Kerry could not beat Bush, what makes you think someone as hated as Hitlery is going to beat a ticket with Fred Thompson on it? Or Ron Paul for that matter?

[Fash]

Kerry was a fucking retard... the only good idea he ever had was bringing a camera to vietnam so he could film himself looking heroic. Also he couldn't talk without pwning himself if he didn't have a script to read from.

Clinton is a very clever politician (or criminal).. she's methodical and very careful... there won't be many gaffes from her campaign.. Her saying the surge 'is working' was planned and timed perfectly, it will distance her from the rest of the foaming-at-the-mouth crowd, and yet she'll be able to continue bashing what W did and didn't do before this point while remaining in 'support of the troops.'

It's not delusional... I don't want it to happen... it's just unfortunate.

[Somali]

I would say Hillary could not win the next election. I believe the difference is that you are approaching the thought from an educated perspective attempting to determine what moderately educated people will do given her platform. My position is that she is a woman, and will lose because she is a woman. Its not that women are less capable, particularly woman past the "monthly cycle," but I do not believe much of the constituency would elect a woman into the role. She has the second issue of being perceived as "not" likable, by much of the blue collar crowd. The trick will be how many people within that crowd come out to vote that would not do so otherwise, with the decided intent of voting "not-her." I'd say we'll see more people turn out for this election than previous ones just for that reason. Perhaps I'm not giving enough credit to the apathetic mass that is the American people though.

[Fash]

To the contrary, I expect voter apathy will be at an all-time high.

[Nick]

It's virtually impossible for the Democrats to lose the election at this point.*

*Although who the fuck knows whats going to happen when you have people like Kilmoll voting.

[Sueven]

How can the probability of an occurrence be simultaneously virtually zero and unknowable?

I don't think it's unlikely at all that the Republicans win in '08.

[Nick]

Are you simply engineered to take everything absolutely literally without seeing, say, a joking dig at Kilmoll hidden somewhere in my post?

I don't think really see how a Republican could ever win the next election, mainly because all of their candidates are globally renowned for being complete idiots. That and the fact that the Republican party got obliterated in the Mid terms and haven't changed since then.

[Sueven]

The first sentence of my last post was the throwaway, the second sentence was the keeper.

Keep in mind that global renown is not particularly important in American elections (source: 2004). American renown is.

You're right that the Repubs got tossed out of DC for being shit, and haven't changed since. What has changed is that the Democrats have been given some power, and have proven themselves to be shit as well. So, from a pro-Dem perspective, that's a negative change between 2006 and 2008.

You're also right that the Repub candidates are idiots. Giuliani is a pocket tyrant and would be all of the things that Bush haters claim Bush is. Romney is a flip-flopping Mormon who reminds me of John Kerry. Fred Thompson is a social ultraconversative actor with a record that will fall apart once the real heat turns on it.

Of course, the Democrats are running a woman and a black man. The woman has as much political baggage as virtually anyone imaginable, and her election would mark the point at which two-family control of the United States crossed the 2 decade mark. The black man has virtually as little experience as anyone imaginable, and his middle name is "Hussein."

I can't really imagine Rudy Giuliani (or Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson) winning a presidential election. Of course, I can't really see Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama winning a presidential election either. So we'll see.

I'm kind of rooting for a Clinton/Obama ticket (I'd love to have Obama on top of that ticket, but that seems unfeasible). But really, I'm just praying for anybody but Giuliani.

[Nick]

The first sentence of my last post was the throwaway, the second sentence was the keeper.

Mine was the other way around. I wasn't trying to be a dick, I agree with your last post 100%.

[Hammerstalkerx]

Dude you don't have to try you have dick written all over you.

I seriously doubt Clinton will be elected. I think Obama will win.

First sentence is the keeper, second one is the throw away.

[Neziroth]

I like Nick's avatar.

[Sueven]

Brian Baird, D-WA, calls for more time and praises the effectiveness of the surge:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/o ... dop24.html

Especially important from my perspective is the following excerpt:

From a strategic perspective, if we leave now, Iraq is likely to break into even worse sectarian conflict. The extremist regime in Iran will expand its influence in Iraq and elsewhere in the region. Terrorist organizations, the people who cut off the heads of civilians, stone women to death, and preach hatred and intolerance, will be emboldened by our departure. In the ensuing chaos, the courageous Iraqi civilians, soldiers and political leaders who have counted on us will be left to the slaughter. No American who cares about human rights, security and our moral standing in the world can be comfortable letting these things happen.

Our citizens should know that this belief is shared by virtually every national leader in the Middle East. There is also near-unanimity among Iraq's neighbors and regional leaders that partition of Iraq is not an option.

"You may think you can walk away from Iraq," I was told by one leader. "We cannot. We live here and have to deal with the consequences of what your nation has done. So will you eventually, if the Iraq conflict spreads and extremists bring us down as well."

Unlike armchair pundits like myself and Nick, this guy's actually been to Iraq, talked to people there, and has been privy to high-level briefings, analyses, and pieces of intelligence.

[Nick]

So despite all evidence pointing to the contrary, "the surge is SOOOOO working because I say so". This really is a peculiar stateside phenomenon that the rest of the world is incredibly bored with.

It´s like teaching a 500 pound downs syndrome man that hitting someone is wrong. You know he´s trying, and you can´t really fault him because he´s just disabled, but unfortunately it doesn´t really make it any less tiresome, annoying and fucking ridiculous that he can´t understand basic reality.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6971952.stm

[Sueven]

Here's the thing.

You keep pointing to various pieces of evidence that point out that Iraq is a clusterfuck. And yes, Iraq is a clusterfuck. If that's the point you're trying to make, I'm with you.

Iraq has been fucked up for awhile now. It's going to continue to be fucked up into the foreseeable future. Progress at this point is incremental. Of course it's fucked up: The important question is whether it is more or less fucked up than it would have been without "the surge." I happen to think that things in Iraq would be more fucked up if we had maintained current levels than they are with our increased levels. I don't know if it would be more fucked up if we left than it is with the increased troop levels. That's why this guy, an anti-war Democrat, who knows a whole hell of a lot more about the situation than you and I can remotely pretend to, saying that things would go to shit if we left is compelling.

That's really all I can say. Virtually nothing you have posted in this thread constitutes a legitimate criticism of the military strategy. I've read things which are legitimate criticisms of the surge while reading in other places. They're valid because they're a criticism of a strategy as a strategy, instead of criticisms of a strategy as a symbol for a greater foreign policy agenda which you (justifiably) oppose.

[Nick]

That's really all I can say. Virtually nothing you have posted in this thread constitutes a legitimate criticism of the military strategy. I've read things which are legitimate criticisms of the surge while reading in other places. They're valid because they're a criticism of a strategy as a strategy, instead of criticisms of a strategy as a symbol for a greater foreign policy agenda which you (justifiably) oppose.

Perhaps you should re-read the link I just posted (which was an invitation to go on and read the full GAO report if you wanted to). It nullifies the rather ridiculous claim that nothing I have posted in this thread constitutes a legitimate criticism of the military strategy.

Sure attacks against troops are down, but not attacks against Iraqi civilians. From a self serving point of view, I can see how Americans would see it as a success. I suppose we´ve all learnt something, for example I didn´t know "not being defeated on the ground quite so heavily as we were a while ago while everyone else suffers as much as before" could ever be construed as a "success", but wonders never cease eh.

The longer the "Surge" gets given serious consideration, after having been a fucking joke from the start, the longer the clusterfuck in Iraq will go on.

[Sueven]

Yes I know about the GAO report. The report is much broader than just "the surge."

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

What a fucking clown. Do you even comprehend at all in that pea brain that Sueven is telling you that if we leave there will be MORE civilian attacks on the Iraqi people than there are now? That without the surge that there could well have been even MORE attacks on them now? Do you comprehend at all or do you just automatically go into arguing like an imbecile every time you have a keyboard in front of you?

[Nick]

Congratulations on not reading the thread and proving once again that you are a notoriously idiotic retard.

[Funkmasterr]

Congratulations on not reading the thread and proving once again that you are a notoriously idiotic retard.

Really nick, we get it. You are against the war, and even though there have been multiple people that have shown you why the surge is working, and have given you multiple reasons why it would be worse for the U.S. to leave now then to stay, you are quick to discount those facts/opinions because your opinion on this will not even be slightly altered by anyone, ever. Seriously, we get it.

[Zaelath]

Congratulations on not reading the thread and proving once again that you are a notoriously idiotic retard.

Really nick, we get it. You are against the war, and even though there have been multiple people that have shown you why the surge is working, and have given you multiple reasons why it would be worse for the U.S. to leave now then to stay, you are quick to discount those facts/opinions because your opinion on this will not even be slightly altered by anyone, ever. Seriously, we get it.

facts/opinions? how about you just admit that it's all opinion and move on. You give general A more creedence because his opinion supports your own than general B who does not. The fact that they may or may not have more "experience on the ground" than us does not really come into it, it's just a convenient trump card to play to try to stifle debate.

I'd grant you the surge has had some limited success without even looking at the figures/reports, but "working"? IIRC it was sold as "an elevation of troop levels to end sectarian violence quickly so that you could hand over to the Iraqis with them being immediately over thrown by fundies". There's so many variables in that, you can't tell if it's "working" until about 6 months after you do pull out. (assuming this withdrawal happens within the next 6 months, otherwise yeah, sorry; Fail)

[Sueven]

facts/opinions? how about you just admit that it's all opinion and move on. You give general A more creedence because his opinion supports your own than general B who does not. The fact that they may or may not have more "experience on the ground" than us does not really come into it, it's just a convenient trump card to play to try to stifle debate.

No, it absolutely comes into it. There is little to no reporting coming "from the ground." Thus, we have to rely on firsthand accounts from the few people who have been there. Some news organization extrapolating trends based on statistics does not constitute a viable account of a situation. So we're left with the biased reports coming from a bunch of self-interested entities like the American military, the Mahdi Army and other insurgent groups, the Iraqi government, and so on. In this context, is it relevant when a war opponent goes for a lengthy visit, discusses the situation with numerous regional leaders, and comes to the conclusion that the surge is working and pulling out would be a humanitarian disaster? Hell fucking yes. If you showed me a gung-ho pro war politician who had a similar experience and come to the opposite conclusion, I'd take that pretty fucking seriously as well. Sure, it's all "opinion"-- keep in mind that ANY SUCH FORECAST OF THE FUTURE OF IRAQ IS NECESSARILY OPINION BECAUSE WE AS A SPECIES HAVE NOT DEVELOPED OMNISCIENCE-- but some opinions are a lot more valuable and informative than others.

I'd grant you the surge has had some limited success without even looking at the figures/reports, but "working"? IIRC it was sold as "an elevation of troop levels to end sectarian violence quickly so that you could hand over to the Iraqis with them being immediately over thrown by fundies". There's so many variables in that, you can't tell if it's "working" until about 6 months after you do pull out. (assuming this withdrawal happens within the next 6 months, otherwise yeah, sorry; Fail)

I'm really tired of people assuming that the goals of a tactical decision are exactly identical with how that decision was "sold." You're not that stupid and there's no reason for you to pretend that you are. The goal of the surge is to be one piece of a wider military and diplomatic puzzle that, when solved, will allow us to hand over control to the Iraqis with a decreased probability of the government being immediately overthrown by fundies. It is not the whole picture and no one, including GW and Dick Cheney, think that the mere addition of troops will quickly and easily solve all of Iraq's problems..

[Zaelath]

People "on the ground" see roughly 9 miles in any given direction, I really don't understand why that gives them a better understanding of what's going through the mind of a jihadist some hundreds of miles away across the country. That's my issue, they're still guessing, they're still offering their opinion, location does not transform opinion into fact. Next time you have a school shooting anywhere in the US, can I ask your informed opinion because you're "on the ground"?

As to selling the surge, no I'm not that stupid. I know it's a lot easier to keep an increased force in Iraq longer than anticipated than it is to get them there in the first place. If you sell it as a temporary measure, then you can slide it past and still deploy them for the next 2-4 years. However, if they're not out in 6 months the "surge" has not "worked". You can juggle the language all you like, but you have to drop "surge" if it lasts for years.

[Sueven]

People "on the ground" see roughly 9 miles in any given direction, I really don't understand why that gives them a better understanding of what's going through the mind of a jihadist some hundreds of miles away across the country.

Such people have a variety of advantages that we do not enjoy. They have the ability to directly speak to a large number of military personnel from a variety of countries who are engaged in a variety of tasks. They also get to talk to Iraqi civilians and get their perspective. They also get to talk to Iraqi government officials and get their perspective. They also get to see the cities and watch how people behave-- do they mingle, do they avoid the streets, is there electricity, is there food. They also get to speak to regional leaders, who have much more experience dealing with the Iraqi population and a far greater understanding of regional political, military and ethnic dynamics. They also get to ask all these people about how their experiences have changed over time. If they visit repeatedly, they can even see firsthand how the situation has changed over time.

That's my issue, they're still guessing, they're still offering their opinion, location does not transform opinion into fact.

As I explicitly stated in my previous post, making a statement of fact regarding the future of Iraq (or the future of ANYTHING) is impossible by definition. Nobody KNOWS what will happen in the future, and therefore nobody is qualified to make statements of fact ABOUT the future. All that anybody can do is give their opinion. Let's say you have three people. One of them has vast experience in politics, is anti-war, has enjoyed all the advantages listed above, and after due consideration given to the information gathered via these advantages forms an opinion which differs from what he expected his opinion to be. The second is a journalist who cobbles together a 5th-grade statistical analysis of the situation in Iraq based on monthly fatality rates, and forms his opinion on this basis. The third is some asshole sitting on his couch watching headlines scroll across the CNN/FoxNews/BBC ticker, and forms an opinion based on the totality of the impressions he absorbs via osmosis. The first guy's OPINION carries a lot more weight with me than do the latter two.

The basic point is that not all opinions are created equal, and the fact that something is an opinion doesn't mean you have no ability to judge it's value.

Next time you have a school shooting anywhere in the US, can I ask your informed opinion because you're "on the ground"?

If I travel to the site of the shooting, interview the survivors, interview any living victims, obtain police reconstructions of the event, talk to those who knew the killers, talk to those who were in charge of security at the setting, talk to police, and so on-- yes, yes you can. It's not like these "on the ground sources" are just some random assholes who happen to be within 1000 miles of a war.

As to selling the surge, no I'm not that stupid. I know it's a lot easier to keep an increased force in Iraq longer than anticipated than it is to get them there in the first place. If you sell it as a temporary measure, then you can slide it past and still deploy them for the next 2-4 years. However, if they're not out in 6 months the "surge" has not "worked". You can juggle the language all you like, but you have to drop "surge" if it lasts for years.

This is why I've been sporadically putting "the surge" in quotation marks throughout this entire thread. It's a troop increase. We should have had more troops on the ground in the first place, now we're correcting that strategic mistake. You're judging "the surge" based on how it was sold rather than on it's actual strategic goals even as you insist that you're not doing so.

[Zaelath]

You make a good case, though I still question the breadth of intelligence people on the ground are able to gather from impartial sources. e.g. unless they're quite, quite, insane, they're only talking to Iraqis in relatively safe areas, which would likely give a seriously skewed perspective. I don't doubt that they have the opportunity to know more about the situtation than I do, but it's like reading the media report of a studies findings versus examining the details of a study and it's methodologies and determining yourself if the findings that have been reached are reasonable. I don't really know who this person is, where they went, who they talked to, who was standing around in earshot with assault weapons, etc, so it's impossible to make a judgement on the findings.

I also agree that if you were going in you should have gone in with more people... but you can't just simply wave your hand jedi style and say "the surge" is achieving it's goals when one of them is to "not really be a surge". It's good rhetoric, but it's reframing the question into something that wasn't asked.

[Sueven]

You make a good case, though I still question the breadth of intelligence people on the ground are able to gather from impartial sources. e.g. unless they're quite, quite, insane, they're only talking to Iraqis in relatively safe areas, which would likely give a seriously skewed perspective. I don't doubt that they have the opportunity to know more about the situtation than I do, but it's like reading the media report of a studies findings versus examining the details of a study and it's methodologies and determining yourself if the findings that have been reached are reasonable. I don't really know who this person is, where they went, who they talked to, who was standing around in earshot with assault weapons, etc, so it's impossible to make a judgement on the findings.

You're right about those limitations. Certainly can't blindly trust any source which claims authority because of their presence in Iraq. It can at least highlight potentially interesting information, though.

I also agree that if you were going in you should have gone in with more people... but you can't just simply wave your hand jedi style and say "the surge" is achieving it's goals when one of them is to "not really be a surge". It's good rhetoric, but it's reframing the question into something that wasn't asked.

Probably a fair criticism for the American administration. There was rhetoric about what 'the surge' was, and then there's the surge, and they're two different things. I'm defending the surge as military strategy, not any of the associated rhetoric, which I'll happily admit was crap.

[Somali]

Its semantics, but technically you could still state the the surge is working. A surge does not have to be a temporary increase. It can also reflect a sudden increase. Commonly a surge will result in a recess to more normalized values afterward, but it is not a requirement by definition.

Its only defensible because of the word chosen. When referring to "The Surge" ^tm then certainly we can say theres no way in hell everything will be happy in 6 months. However, the surge (sudden increase) in troops could be argued as beneficial over an extended duration. Could the same benefit be seen from a more gradual constant supply of additional troops? Perhaps, but it would have been harder to accomplish. Hence the surge is working, its just going to require a longer duration for the troops than originally anticipated. "Oopsies." Selling a concept like this to any large mass of people could be related to speaking to children. Its very likely that they won't properly comprehend the consequences or reasoning, so the goal becomes to explain the concept in terms that they can understand or simply terms that are palatable. In this case, it was sold as something temporary because it was something that would be easier to swallow. In reality, they just needed a surge of people. I suppose the other fitting comment is that "It's always easier to ask forgiveness than permission."

Do the ends justify the means? Hopefully.

[Fash]

Its semantics, but technically you could still state the the surge is working. A surge does not have to be a temporary increase. It can also reflect a sudden increase. Commonly a surge will result in a recess to more normalized values afterward, but it is not a requirement by definition.

Its only defensible because of the word chosen. When referring to "The Surge" ^tm then certainly we can say theres no way in hell everything will be happy in 6 months. However, the surge (sudden increase) in troops could be argued as beneficial over an extended duration. Could the same benefit be seen from a more gradual constant supply of additional troops? Perhaps, but it would have been harder to accomplish. Hence the surge is working, its just going to require a longer duration for the troops than originally anticipated. "Oopsies." Selling a concept like this to any large mass of people could be related to speaking to children. Its very likely that they won't properly comprehend the consequences or reasoning, so the goal becomes to explain the concept in terms that they can understand or simply terms that are palatable. In this case, it was sold as something temporary because it was something that would be easier to swallow. In reality, they just needed a surge of people. I suppose the other fitting comment is that "It's always easier to ask forgiveness than permission."

Do the ends justify the means? Hopefully.

Wow, a post of yours that didn't make we want to asphyxiate myself... well said.

[Aslanna]

Brian Baird, D-WA, calls for more time and praises the effectiveness of the surge:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/o ... dop24.html

Especially important from my perspective is the following excerpt:

Our citizens should know that this belief is shared by virtually every national leader in the Middle East. There is also near-unanimity among Iraq's neighbors and regional leaders that partition of Iraq is not an option.

"You may think you can walk away from Iraq," I was told by one leader. "We cannot. We live here and have to deal with the consequences of what your nation has done. So will you eventually, if the Iraq conflict spreads and extremists bring us down as well."

That part of it is interesting. If it's true how come we're not receiving more support or cooperation from those leaders?

[Boogahz]

That part of it is interesting. If it's true how come we're not receiving more support or cooperation from those leaders?

I would guess that the instant those countries set foot into Iraq, the acts of violence would quadruple.

[Aslanna]

That part of it is interesting. If it's true how come we're not receiving more support or cooperation from those leaders?

I would guess that the instant those countries set foot into Iraq, the acts of violence would quadruple.

I don't mean military support such as troops or whatever. I mean even simple things like more security at the border, political support, etc.

[Boogahz]

That part of it is interesting. If it's true how come we're not receiving more support or cooperation from those leaders?

I would guess that the instant those countries set foot into Iraq, the acts of violence would quadruple.

I don't mean military support such as troops or whatever. I mean even simple things like more security at the border, political support, etc.

I think it would be a similar situation no matter what "visible" support they provided. Even ramping up security on their own borders can have negative consequences depending on how other countries view it. Turkey had been moving troops into areas along their borders a couple years ago, and tensions started to rise as countries thought they would try to move in to take the Kurdish areas over for themselves.

[Somali]

Wow, a post of yours that didn't make we want to asphyxiate myself... well said.

Glad to hear I'm fulfilling your requirement for succinctness.

I agree with Boogahz on this one. Any support outside of financial support, would likely be viewed as a hostile action coming from the neighboring countries.
For the UN or the US, they can excuse our actions as those of meddling fucktards that can't keep our noses out of our own business, but will eventually leave them the hell alone. I would wager that one of the neighboring countries "helping with military" or "reinforcing the borders" would be perceived as looking for a land grab.

[Wulfran]

Not to mention that if a lot of the rabble rousers are leaving Jordan or Saudi or anywhere else to "fight the infidel" in Iraq, their own countries don't have to deal with them: their native gov'ts probably hope they get themselves butchered in some way and place where they have no culpability. In the long term, this alone could be a risky proposition if the insurgents/foreign fighters can continue the violence and induce it to spreading to other nations in the region, but with the other considerations Boog mentioned it turns into one more angle to play...

Again this doesn't account for the facts that some gov'ts (namely Syria and Iran) would dearly love to see more egg on the faces of the US/NATO/Europe and will most likely tacitly support programs they feel can get away with it and have a reasonable chance of success in the Risk vs Reward aspect. Arming some crackpots and sending them on a "jihad" may not have a great probability of success but its cheap...

[Winnow]

From CNN Breaking News:

Osama bin Laden will address the American people in a new video on September 11, a terror monitoring group says.

Man, he's already doing well in the polls. No need to exploit Sept 11th!

He better not screw up the following week's NFL games with a terrorist attack and cause havok with FF leagues.

[Sueven]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 71_pf.html

Nevertheless, it's looking more and more as though those in and outside of Congress who last month were assailing Gen. Petraeus's credibility and insisting that there was no letup in Iraq's bloodshed were -- to put it simply -- wrong.