Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What flop have I flipped? You're confusing. Isn't Al Gore in a conspiracy with the communists to use global warming to tax America into poverty and give the wealth to Rwanda, or something like that, though?
So the New York Times, Washington Post, etc. have no more credibility than Uncle Harry Peterson? If you don't want to debate the points in the ad, what about the articles they reference?
"It is unclear whether sectarian violence in Iraq has decreased—a key
security benchmark—since it is difficult to measure whether the
perpetrators’ intents were sectarian in nature, and other measures of
population security show differing trends. "
"As displayed in figure 4, average daily attacks against civilians have remained
unchanged from February to July 2007."
And then you have the pretty conservative Washington Post:
"Intelligence analysts computing aggregate levels of violence against civilians for the NIE puzzled over how the military designated attacks as combat, sectarian or criminal, according to one senior intelligence official in Washington. "If a bullet went through the back of the head, it's sectarian," the official said. "If it went through the front, it's criminal."
"Among the most worrisome trends cited by the NIE was escalating warfare between rival Shiite militias in southern Iraq that has consumed the port city of Basra and resulted last month in the assassination of two southern provincial governors. According to a spokesman for the Baghdad headquarters of the Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I), those attacks are not included in the military's statistics."
Or the AP?
"Iraq is suffering about double the number of war-related deaths throughout the country compared with last year — an average daily toll of 33 in 2006, and 62 so far this year."
Like I said before, try not to confuse the message with the messenger.
Here are excerpts from an interview with Sen. John Cornyn
GLENN: Okay. So let me go over one paragraph in this moveon.org and you tell me what's true and what's not, all right? Every independent report on the ground in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed. True or false?
CORNYN: That's a false statement. I just accounted two other professional opinions including the commission headed by General Jim Jones with 500 years of military experience among them, and the National Intelligence estimate issued in August, all are consistent with what General Petraeus is saying.
And acording to Iraq Body Count, an independent London-based organization that tracks civilian deaths in Iraq, overall levels of violence against Iraqi civilians have decreased since the last six months of 2006.
Here are excerpts from an interview with Sen. John Cornyn
GLENN: Okay. So let me go over one paragraph in this moveon.org and you tell me what's true and what's not, all right? Every independent report on the ground in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed. True or false?
CORNYN: That's a false statement. I just accounted two other professional opinions including the commission headed by General Jim Jones with 500 years of military experience among them, and the National Intelligence estimate issued in August, all are consistent with what General Petraeus is saying.
And acording to Iraq Body Count, an independent London-based organization that tracks civilian deaths in Iraq, overall levels of violence against Iraqi civilians have decreased since the last six months of 2006.
Alright... let's see. I agree, actually, that the ad's saying that "All independent assesments show failure," is a rather subjective and exxagerated statement that can appear true or false, depending on what you're looking for (some reports argue that the surge has "succeeded" in producing some modern security gains, while all of them agree that the surge has "failed" to produce adequate political reconciliation, or to reduce violence below 2006 levels)... that statement was misleading. But I'm talking mostly about the non-subjective statements, about the underestimation of violence performed by the millitary and the executive branch. The IBC report you mentioned apparently acknowledges a little "book cooking," or at least underrepresentation, going on:
"These charts sometimes indicate a modest improvement in the security situation for ordinary Iraqis post-surge, and this is not disputed. But these charts will tend to under-represent reported violence for the more recent periods, for the reasons stated above. The observed downward trend in these charts will likely become less marked as data still in the pipeline is added (see Recent Events for as yet unprocessed data).
It is important to place the events of 2007 in context. Levels of violence reached an all-time high in the last six months of 2006. Only in comparison to that could the first half of 2007 be regarded as an improvement. Despite any efforts put into the surge, the first six months of 2007 was still the most deadly first six months for civilians of any year since the invasion."
And the NIE estimate that the guy mentioned isn't exactly the success, "staying the course shall eventually bring victory," story that Bush/Petraeus are putting out:
"We assess, to the extent that Coalition forces continue to conduct robust
counterinsurgency operations and mentor and support the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF),
that Iraq’s security will continue to improve modestly during the next six to 12 months
but that levels of insurgent and sectarian violence will remain high and the Iraqi
Government will continue to struggle to achieve national-level political reconciliation
and improved governance. Broadly accepted political compromises required for sustained
security, long-term political progress, and economic development are unlikely to emerge
unless there is a fundamental shift in the factors driving Iraqi political and security
developments." -- Doesn't sound that promising, does it?
Unless the Iraqi government gets its **** together the country'll devolve further into civil war whether we draw down now or 4 years from now. And according to that report, that government is becoming more precarious, rather than gaining strength. There aren't enough troops to indefinitely keep the same level of security/occupation that's present now (assuming you agree with that portion of the reports that claim security has improved somewhat with the surge), and if there's any success it's not in granting the country a peaceful reprieve to work out their differences, but instead sticking some fingers in a huge, gushing dyke that could still explode at any time.
So... considering all this, has the surge of troops "succeeded" or "failed?" Depends on your definition.
And the NIE estimate that the guy mentioned isn't exactly the success, "staying the course shall eventually bring victory," story that Bush/Petraeus are putting out:
"We assess, to the extent that Coalition forces continue to conduct robust
counterinsurgency operations and mentor and support the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF),
that Iraq’s security will continue to improve modestly during the next six to 12 months
but that levels of insurgent and sectarian violence will remain high and the Iraqi
Government will continue to struggle to achieve national-level political reconciliation
and improved governance. Broadly accepted political compromises required for sustained
security, long-term political progress, and economic development are unlikely to emerge
unless there is a fundamental shift in the factors driving Iraqi political and security
developments." -- Doesn't sound that promising, does it?
Unless the Iraqi government gets its **** together the country'll devolve further into civil war whether we draw down now or 4 years from now. And according to that report, that government is becoming more precarious, rather than gaining strength. There aren't enough troops to indefinitely keep the same level of security/occupation that's present now (assuming you agree with that portion of the reports that claim security has improved somewhat with the surge), and if there's any success it's not in granting the country a peaceful reprieve to work out their differences, but instead sticking some fingers in a huge, gushing dyke that could still explode at any time.
So... considering all this, has the surge of troops "succeeded" or "failed?" Depends on your definition.
Making valid points is the enemy of the right. None of those identifying themselves as 'right' or 'red' has ever argued point by point with someone who asks valid questions. They would rather adhere to their beliefs even when the facts don't support them, or, in this case, direct attention somewhere else. Look over here, here's your new enemy!
To them, ignorance is bliss; however, their ignorance equates to the death of our country. Try as hard as the left does, its persistent questions can't seem to break through the brick wall of ignorance.
Whoever gave me a neg rep for this with "OH, BULL", you just proved my point.
So... considering all this, has the surge of troops "succeeded" or "failed?" Depends on your definition.
My take is that the surge was a success. We were able to lower violence levels and bring more order to many areas, much more than had been there in a long time.
And now since we were able to provide the Iraq govt. a chance to step up and meet their bench marks at the expense of American lives and money we don't have to spend, its time we start turning things over to them. If they fail to unify and take control, that is not something we can fix in a year or 20 years.
We need to reduce our number of troops and amount of equipment systematically over the course of the next 2-4 years, at a rate faster than what Bush has mentioned. I'd like to see us down to 100,000 next summer instead of 130,000. And then we can go from there.
But if the Iraqi govt. hasn't already stepped up, why should we think they will in another year? Or another?
Good news (though admittedly not for my cognitive consistency)... however I don't think it's good to make judgements based on monthly fluctuations... you have to remember (maybe I'm wrong?) that the violence levels are still fluctuating around far nearer the peak than, say, the level things were at 2 or 3 years ago, and even if we get it back down to those levels then the Iraqi government will still be at about the same level of "favorableness to political reconciliation" that they were at back then... and they didn't politically reconcile back then. Why would they do it now? I don't think any of the varying factions want compromise... the Shiites want what they want, the Sunnis want what they want, and they'll probably keep fighting until someone "wins," which isn't what the US wants. So are we just delaying the inevitable by staying? Dragging out the conflict in order to temporarily keep it somewhat "in check?" There's so many questions! I don't have the answers. Nobody does. But to me it doesn't appear the path we're on is a path to the war ending any sooner than it would if we left.
So does that sound reasonable? Or to those who disagree with me does it just sound like me trying to defend my position through thick and through thin, like George Bush? I hope I'm not like George Bush... Actually I wouldn't mind looking like George Bush as long as I got to be President, or maybe Texas Governor.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
