Click here for AnswerPool.com Home page


Google

    AnswerPool.com  Hop To Forum Categories  News & Reference  Hop To Forums  Current Events    The Success of the Surge

Moderators: Koz
Go
Post
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
  Login/Join 
Site
Administrator
Picture of DorianGreyed
Posted
The Fleeting Success of the Surge

Humanitarian agencies reckon that there are 750,000 Iraqis in Jordan and 1.5 million in Syria. Fewer than 30,000 have returned, and many of them will simply join the ranks of the 2.4 million who are classified as "internally displaced persons"--living in Iraq but unable to return to their old neighborhoods because they are now run by sectarian militias.

In truth, Baghdad is nothing like normal and still some distance from safe. The number of sectarian killings is down, but few Sunnis dare to venture into Shi'ite neighborhoods, and vice versa. U.S. military commanders, whose efforts have led to the sharp reduction in violence, have been cautioning against reading too much into the statistics. "Nobody says anything about turning a corner, seeing lights at the end of tunnels, any of those phrases," General David Petraeus told journalists on Dec. 6. "There's nobody in uniform who is doing victory dances in the end zone."

Petraeus' words may have been directed at Washington, where some Administration officials have been crowing about the success of the military surge strategy. Iraqis living in exile don't need to be told it's too soon to celebrate.

Baghdad may be safer than it was, but people like the Awadis worry that the gains of the surge are temporary and predicated on a massive American presence. They point out that Iraq's political leadership has failed to use the relative calm to engineer any real reconciliation between the majority Shi'ites and the Sunnis. While U.S. troops have battled al-Qaeda in Baghdad, Anbar and Diyala, the Iraqi Parliament has made little progress on critical legislation in more than a year. And partly because of massive government corruption, improvements in basic services like electricity, water and fuel have lagged behind security gains. Baghdad gets an average of eight hours of electricity a day, about half the prewar level. So while there's a trickle of refugees going home, many Iraqis continue to leave Baghdad. Here are four reasons families like the Awadis are not yet packing their bags for home.

The Killers Are Still at Large

The U.S. military has recruited thousands of Sunni insurgents to join the fight against jihadist groups like al-Qaeda, but the Shi'ite militias mainly responsible for last year's sectarian carnage remain largely untouched.

The Sunnis Remain Out in the Cold

But many Shi'ite leaders see Sunni groups as a long-term threat--a fifth column within the armed forces. The distrust is so deep that many Sunni fighters injured in battles against al-Qaeda have to be taken to U.S. military hospitals because they would not be safe in the Shi'ite-controlled Iraqi medical system.

Crooked State, Crippled Services

While politicians in the protected bubble of the Green Zone argue in circles, rampant graft has left Iraq devoid of any meaningful governance. Transparency International, which monitors corruption worldwide, recently ranked Iraq as the third most corrupt country in the world, ahead of only Burma and Somalia.

There's No Political Leadership

In a year and a half in office, Al-Maliki has proved incapable of rising above narrow Shi'ite politics. - Time

Yes, the Surge is working; violence is down. But it's still there, and the reasons it's down may be that we armed (again) one side, and have paved the way for the continuation of the civil war that has been playing out in Iraq since we removed the only restraints on sectarian violence.

Almost 10% of Iraqis now live in neighboring countries. having fled, in many cases, for their lives. Slightly more that that are still living in Iraq, but not in their homes; they've been driven out by the other sect.

Those who see the Surge only as a military action see that the violence has indeed gone down. But they don't see all the reasons why it has, and they fail to remember exactly why the Surge was implemented.

Those who remember the reasons given for the Surge see that the Iraqi government has done little with what we have given them.

And then there is this: "Baghdad gets an average of eight hours of electricity a day, about half the prewar level."

But the Surge is working, and we all should be dancing in the streets. We'll have to do the dancing, because Iraqis sure aren't.
 
Posts: 17506 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Gold Enthusiast
Posted Hide Post
But the Surge is working, and we all should be dancing in the streets.
_______________________________________________
Hi dg:

Since none of the Presidential candidates in either party,with the exception of Ron Paul, have stated that we can't get out of Iraq for several years at the earliest...shouldn't we all be damn glad that the Surge IS working ???

Or would you rather have U.S.troops get their ass kicked for the next several years???

What's the advantage in that ???

hippolips
 
Posts: 883 | Location: Temecula,CA,USA | Registered: 06-03-02Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Site
Administrator
Picture of DorianGreyed
Posted Hide Post
Hippo, I posted over a year ago that we should just get up and leave. As time goes by, more and more people are agreeing with Rep. Murtha, who said we should just have a strong presence in the area, over the horizon. Whenever we leave, the (it's not a) civil war will start back up (although it never really stopped, just lessened somewhat), and Iraq will finally decide its own fate. Why delay the inevitable at the cost of American lives? Cui bono? Not the Iraqis. Not our military. Not the US taxpayer.
 
Posts: 17506 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Diamond
Enthusiast

Picture of Lighteningrodd
Posted Hide Post
For poloitcal purposes, the Democrats have literally done everything they can to undermine President Bush on the war in Iraq. And to a degree they have succeeded. They got control of the House & the Senate back. What was the Republicans big mistake??? Not backing the President. Running away. They let the lies, distortions & Democrat rhetoric get to them. Every Republican that was up for re-election in his /her House or Senate seat should have taken a stand and fight the Democrat Party spin machine B.S.

We have several candidates running on the premise of immediately pulling out of Iraq, once inauguarated. At least that's what they campaign on. And should one of them get elected, I don't care if ot's Hillary, Barack, or Ron Paul, or whoever. Once in there, they will find its not that simple. And the anti-war base that was behind them will be the ones feeling like they got screwed.
 
Posts: 2277 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Diamond
Enthusiast

Posted Hide Post
What's the score at the moment? Saddam was accused of genocide of Kurds in 1988 when at least 80,000 were killed (some claim 180,000). At that time he was seen as a friend of the USA, wasn't he? Pity nobody invaded to stop it. Be that as it may, how many other people in Iraq did he kill?Had he not stopped doing so well before any invasion was mooted?

And how many people have been killed since the invasion, an invasion now justified, inter alia, by the claim that life is improved in Iraq by not having him around killing people there?

Is there a mismatch between the two totals? If a lot more have died since than before, what justifies the price paid, in lives and money, for the invasion,the overthrow of Saddam and the occupation ?
 
Posts: 8678 | Location: Newmarket, UK/ Antibes, S.France | Registered: 07-14-02Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Gold Enthusiast
Posted Hide Post
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
Hippo, I posted over a year ago that we should just get up and leave. As time goes by, more and more people are agreeing with Rep. Murtha, who said we should just have a strong presence in the area, over the horizon.________________________________________

Hi dg:

Murtha's quote,"we should have a strong presence in the area,over the horizon" sounds to me that we are not really leaving,nor do we have any real intention of leaving.

Hillary has also stated that she intends to keep a force to protect our super-duper new embassy in Iraq ,as well as our 4 new bases in Iraq,as well as a special force to continue to train Iraqi troops.

That doesn't sound like we're leaving anytime in the near future,either.

hippolips
 
Posts: 883 | Location: Temecula,CA,USA | Registered: 06-03-02Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Diamond
Enthusiast

Picture of Lighteningrodd
Posted Hide Post
For Murtha to make that statement, what does that tell us about what the real Democrat position is??? There will be a continued presence in Iraq for quite some time, reguardless of who is elected to the White House in 2008.
 
Posts: 2277 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Diamond
Enthusiast

Posted Hide Post
Obama's latest speech on Iraq:

'...I introduced a plan in January to remove all of our combat brigades by next March. And I am here to say that we have to begin to end this war now.

My plan for ending the war would turn the page in Iraq by removing our combat troops from Iraq's civil war; by taking a new approach to press for a new accord on reconciliation within Iraq; by talking to all of Iraq's neighbors to press for a compact in the region; and by confronting the human costs of this war.

First, we need to immediately begin the responsible removal of our troops from Iraq's civil war...

...We will need to retain some forces in Iraq and the region. We'll continue to strike at al Qaeda in Iraq. We'll protect our forces as they leave, and we will continue to protect U.S. diplomats and facilities. If - but only if - Iraq makes political progress and their security forces are not sectarian, we should continue to train and equip those forces.'
www.barackobama.com

I guess it's the size, purpose, and context of the continuing presence that are up for debate.
 
Posts: 8113 | Location: Canada | Registered: 06-03-02Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
 Previous Topic | Next Topic powered by eve community  
 

    AnswerPool.com  Hop To Forum Categories  News & Reference  Hop To Forums  Current Events    The Success of the Surge

© 2002-2008 AnswerPool.com



Visit DiscussionPool.com!