This is a strong voice; one US grunt over there.

And on it goes.

quote:

Originally posted by newnickname:
You're quibbling about statistics. It's not clear that violence in Iraq is being reduced by the surge - whenever the surge started and whenever you start counting from.

You and yours brought up the statistics. It is funny though when I prove your point wrong, you say I am quibbling. Maybe I am quibbling, but when anyone attempts to promote their argument with false information, I feel I am obligated to disprove it. If your correct in your argument, then you shouldn't have to make something up.

quote:

Success or victory for the surge cannot be separated from political progress. The idea is absurd. If you want to, somehow, make a distinction between those short term goals for victory in Iraq, and a definition of success for the surge, that means that you haven't defined success for the surge except to say that is is to "quell violence".

I can't make it more clear then I already have, the 'surge' is working, whether you like it or not.

quote:

Which takes us back to the point - for violence to be quelled, sustainably over the longer term, there needs to be political progress. What would be the point of expending all this effort and all these lives to quell violence for a couple of months, just to have it resume when the surge is over?

Just how many times does this same question need answering?

quote:

Your attempts to divorce the surge from its context are silly. Not even Bush & Co are trying to do that, and certainly not the people in charge of the surge.

Your continued nonsense is getting repetitious. We surly don't even need the Iraqi Government in place to 'surge'. Surly you can understand if the Iraqi Government was wasted in a bombing tonight, the surge can and would continue. You do know this right?

quote:

I agree with the desired result, but I disagree with the method he is using to reach the goal. By placing so much of our military in Iraq, the war on terror suffers in other parts of the world.

Dwight

That might be true, put if I had to base that on some factual information, I couldn't do it.

quote:

Surly you can understand if the Iraqi Government was wasted in a bombing tonight, the surge can and would continue. You do know this right?

The surge would probably continue in the hope that another Iraqi government would be able to take over, at some point, somehow.

However, if there were no prospect of a workable Iraqi government (and some say that actually there isn't), there would be no point to 'surging' for a few months. Why waste all those lives if the end result would only be to postpone complete chaos until early next year? The surge has to end by spring, if not before, because there just aren't enough soldiers. It would be better to pull out immediately, and force the Saudis and Iranians to try to sort the mess out.

Even Bush says that he point of the surge is to create the conditions for political progress. (Maybe he's blinded by hatred of himself.) If there is no political progress the surge can't be said to "work".

From a previous link:

'In 1975, Army Col. Harry Summers went to Hanoi as chief of the U.S. delegation's negotiation team for the four-party military talks that followed the collapse of the South Vietnamese government. While there, he spent some time chatting with his North Vietnamese counterpart, Col. Tu, an old soldier who had fought against the United States and lived to tell his tale. With a tinge of bitterness about the war's outcome, Summers told Tu, "You know, you never defeated us on the battlefield." Tu replied, in a phrase that perfectly captured the American misunderstanding of the Vietnam War, "That may be so, but it is also irrelevant."

Maybe I should just agree with you. Yes, if we ignore the fact that its ultimate goal seems unlikely, and if we ignore the violence in certain areas of Iraq, and if we carefully choose the best-looking statistics, the surge - as a purely military exercise considered separately from its wider context, in some areas where there are actually extra soldiers and not too much sectarian fighting - is working.

So what?

Some movement on the political front:

'Nuri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, and fellow leaders in the country have reached consensus on key areas of national reconciliation, under mounting US pressure to demonstrate political progress on the eve of a key report to Congress on the Baghdad security "surge".

The Shia prime minister appeared on television flanked by Jalal Talabani, the country's Kurdish president, and the Sunni vice-president, Tareq al-Hashemi, to announce a deal on easing restrictions on former members of the Ba'ath party joining the civil service and military...' www.guardian.co.uk

And "partition"?

'The new data, released at the weekend, show that sectarian conflict remains undiminished - despite Washington's claims of an improvement in the security situation in the Baghdad area - and that different communities are now gravitating apart, creating a de facto partition as Shia Muslims move south and Sunnis to the centre and west of the country. The UNHCR said recently that on average 50,000 Iraqis were now fleeing their homes every month. The trend was confirmed last month by the UN's Geneva-based International Organisation for Migration (IOM), which found that internal displacements had escalated since the al-Qaida bombing of the Shia al-Askari shrine in Samarra in February 2006.' www.guardian.co.uk

quote:

Originally posted by newnickname:
Some movement on the political front:

'Nuri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, and fellow leaders in the country have reached consensus on key areas of national reconciliation, under mounting US pressure to demonstrate political progress on the eve of a key report to Congress on the Baghdad security "surge".

The Shia prime minister appeared on television flanked by Jalal Talabani, the country's Kurdish president, and the Sunni vice-president, Tareq al-Hashemi, to announce a deal on easing restrictions on former members of the Ba'ath party joining the civil service and military...' www.guardian.co.uk

And "partition"?

'The new data, released at the weekend, show that sectarian conflict remains undiminished - despite Washington's claims of an improvement in the security situation in the Baghdad area - and that different communities are now gravitating apart, creating a de facto partition as Shia Muslims move south and Sunnis to the centre and west of the country. The UNHCR said recently that on average 50,000 Iraqis were now fleeing their homes every month. The trend was confirmed last month by the UN's Geneva-based International Organisation for Migration (IOM), which found that internal displacements had escalated since the al-Qaida bombing of the Shia al-Askari shrine in Samarra in February 2006.' www.guardian.co.uk

April 24, 2007

Iraqi Red Crescent tells Democrats to stop partisan bickering

The Iraqi Red Crescent is expressing it's distaste with United States Democrats, telling them a pull-out of US and coalition troops is a bad idea and would lead to more bloodshed in Iraq. Over 40 members of The Red Crescent have been killed while working on humanitarian duties in Iraq. Fox News Channel reports, but are the Democrats listening?

http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2007/04/iraqi_red_cresc.html

That was in April, 'when Said Hakki, the president of the Iraqi Red Crescent, expressed concern that by setting a withdrawal timetable, the U.S. would abandon Iraq at the height of a humanitarian crisis.'

Now, however, the Iraqi Red Crescent and the IOM tell us 'that despite much-trumpeted security improvements in certain areas, the level of murderous violence has not declined. The studies reveal that the number of Iraqis fleeing their homes ­ not intending to return ­ is far higher than before the US surge.

The flight is especially marked in religiously mixed areas of central Iraq, with Shia refugees heading south and Sunnis towards the west and north of the country.

Calling it the worst human displacement in Iraq's modern history, a report by the UN migration office suggests that the fierce fighting that has followed the arrival of new US troops is partly responsible.

The spectre of ethnic cleansing now hovers over the once relatively harmonious country. The UN found that 63 per cent of the Iraqis fled their neighbourhoods because of threats to their lives. More than 25 per cent said they fled after being thrown out of their homes at gunpoint.' news.independent.co.uk

And Saeed Haqi says, now, "Does this surge have anything to do with it? We don't know... ...But they're leaving because of the security situation in general."

It's hardly an endorsement of the surge, or a confirmation that it's "working", is it? Hakki wanted US troops to stay, to help contain a humanitarian crisis, but now that he's seen how the surge is going, he can't say whether or not it's actually part of the problem.

Still, those political developments seem to be good news.

Success in Al Anbar finances terrorism:

'A fresh round of rebuilding spurred by the U.S. military's recent alliance with some Anbar tribes — 200 new projects are scheduled — provides another opportunity for militant groups such as al Qaeda in Iraq to siphon off more U.S. money, contractors and politicians warn.

"Now we're back to the same old story in Anbar. The Americans are handing out contracts and jobs to terrorists, bandits and gangsters," said Sheik Ali Hatem Ali Suleiman, the deputy leader of the Dulaim, the largest and most powerful tribe in Anbar. He was involved in several U.S. rebuilding contracts in the early days of the war, but is now a harsh critic of the U.S. presence.

The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad declined to provide anyone to discuss the allegations. An embassy spokesman, Noah Miller, said in an e-mailed statement that, "in terms of contracting practices, we have checks and balances in our contract awarding system to prevent any irregularities from occurring. Each contracted company is responsible for providing security for the project."

Providing that security is the source of the extortion, Iraqi contractors say...' www.mcclatchydc.com

Complicated situation, isn't it?

'Fallujah is quiet these days. After all the fighting and destruction of 2004, U.S. and Iraqi forces call this success. Many residents are not so sure...'
Fallujah Finds a False Peace

Is such a peace sustainable? Could it be that the purpose of the surge is just to keep a lid (more or less) on things so that it's Bush's successor who has to call time on the whole sorry mess, rather than Bush himself? I guess in those terms, we might say that the surge is working.

Uncertainty in Washington and at the Pentagon:

'Iraq has failed to meet all but three of 18 congressionally mandated benchmarks for political and military progress, according to a draft of a Government Accountability Office report. The document questions whether some aspects of a more positive assessment by the White House last month adequately reflected the range of views the GAO found within the administration...' www.washingtonpost.com

'In a sign that top commanders are divided over what course to pursue in Iraq, the Pentagon said Wednesday that it won't make a single, unified recommendation to President Bush during next month's strategy assessment, but instead will allow top commanders to make individual presentations...' www.mcclatchydc.com

Meanwhile Moqtada Sadr has called a six-month truce, but this may be less to do with the surge than with his regaining control of his 'army', and a popular backlash against fighting near holy sites.

Most Americans see war as winnable
By S.A. Miller
August 30, 2007

A majority of Americans say the United States can win the war in Iraq, but the country is sharply divided along party lines about every aspect of the war, according to a United Press International/Zogby poll released yesterday.

The poll shows 54 percent of Americans said the war is not lost. However, among Democrats, 66 percent said the mission has failed already, compared with 9 percent of Republicans who shared that view.

The survey also showed the country split on the success of the U.S. troop surge ordered earlier this year by President Bush and on the wartime performance of the Democrat-led Congress.

"This is a portrait of a divided nation that is not easily going to be placated on this issue," said John Zogby, president of the polling firm. "It's one thing to have a majority; it's another when you look at how diametrically opposed Democrats and Republicans are."

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, said the poll showed that "most Americans want to win the war against al Qaeda in Iraq and, given what is at stake, they believe we must."

"What they're hearing from Democrats in Washington directly contradicts both that fundamental belief and the positive reports coming from our commanders on the ground in Iraq," he said. "People know when they're being sold a bill of goods, especially on something as important as this, and you're seeing that reflected in the polls."

About 49 percent of voters said the troop surge was not working, while 45 percent said it had produced results, according to the online nationwide survey of 6,711 adults, conducted over the weekend.

Most Democrats — 86 percent — said the surge was failing, a view repeatedly trumpeted over the past several months by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat.

Click below for Page 2 of 2.

http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/2...02&template=nextpage

quote:

...the country is sharply divided along party lines about every aspect of the war...

No kidding. It seems that the Pentagon is also divided - along what lines, though? Careerist versus non-careerist generals?

quote:

"...most Americans want to win the war against al Qaeda in Iraq and, given what is at stake, they believe we must..."

What a strange quote.

Firstly, the war is not just against al Qaeda, and maybe only marginally so. The fighting is against, and among, an insurgency much larger than only those groups aligning themselves with al Qaeda.

Secondly, is Boehner trying to suggest that those Americans who feel that America is losing the war don't actually want America to win? Or, on the other hand, that those who feel that America must win therefore think that it is winning?

The poll surely asked people about what they felt was really happening in Iraq, not about what they wished would happen. But, then, those in favor of the invasion infamously have little time for the reality-based community, and maybe got confused.

Funny what the article doesn't say, but Zogby does.

In addition, 34 percent of Americans believe a US victory in Iraq is not possible, while 37 percent say it will be possible when the Iraqi government takes control of security. - http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=15545

Asked to define a U.S. victory in Iraq, 37% of American adults overall said it would be achieved when Iraq gains control over its own internal security (a view with which 58% of Republicans, but just 17% of Democrats, agree). But nearly as many Americans (34%) said they don't believe a U.S. victory in Iraq is possible - 60% of Democrats agree there cannot be victory in Iraq, compared to just 7% of Republicans.

Overall, 13% said a U.S. victory will be achieved when a secure Iraq forms a democratic government, and 11% said the U.S. has already achieved victory in Iraq.

Most Americans are highly critical of the U.S. government's pre-war planning - 80% don't believe the government adequately planned for the post-war phase prior to launching the war in Iraq. Three in four (72%) don't believe the U.S. government's conduct of the occupation phase of Iraq was handled competently. - http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1352

I'm with that 11%. The war is won. We can bring our military back home now.

Father who lost 2 sons urges support for wars

By Garance Burke - The Associated Press
Posted : Thursday Aug 30, 2007 22:35:18 EDT

CLOVIS, Calif. — A father who lost a second son last week in the Iraq war declined Thursday to speak out against the conflict, and said the support his family has received since the death of Army Cpl. Nathan Hubbard strengthened his backing for U.S. efforts to combat global terrorism.

“The nation’s at war,” said Jeff Hubbard, the soldier’s father, a retired police officer. “We just want people to support the nation and what it’s trying to get accomplished by making the world a better place.”

Hubbard, 21, died Aug. 22 in a helicopter crash. He enlisted at age 19 while still grieving for his older brother, Marine Lance Cpl. Jared Hubbard, who was killed by a roadside bomb in Ramadi in 2004.

A third brother, Army Spc. Jason Hubbard, 33, was part of the team that recovered Nathan’s body from the crash site. After Nathan’s death, Jason was sent home from his unit and was ordered not to redeploy to a hostile fire zone.

For full story click on link below.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/08/ap_hubbard_father_070830/

It's a tragic story, and of course my heart goes out to this family, and every other family that has suffered. There must be thousands of similar stories.

'When asked by reporters whether his support of the war had waned since losing two sons in the war, Jeff Hubbard said that he hoped the "people in power" were making the right decisions overseas and encouraged Americans to support the United States.

"I just hope they're right and I hope we get something accomplished out of all this after all the sacrifice we've made and the rest of the country has sacrificed," he said, choking back tears during the emotional interview.' www.abcnews.go.com

"I just hope..." I wonder if stubborn insistence that the invasion was justified and that things are working out is based on this kind of understandable need - a hope that there has been some point to all the death and destruction. The alternative - that there was no good reason for the invasion, and that it has been bungled in any case - is maybe just too awful to contemplate. That's understandable, in terms of human emotion.

It doesn't tell us whether or not the surge is working, though.

It must be obvious, to any reasonable person, that someone losing a loved one in this conflict has a powerful need to discover a purpose. To accept the death of a son, two sons, daughter, husband, in an unnecessary and bungled cause is almost impossible for most humans. That most try their best to find justification is a no brainer. To cite public utterances by grieving family members in support of the war, as arguments in favor of it, is ridiculous and naive. IMHO.

quote:

Originally posted by newnickname:
It's a tragic story, and of course my heart goes out to this family, and every other family that has suffered. There must be thousands of similar stories.

'When asked by reporters whether his support of the war had waned since losing two sons in the war, Jeff Hubbard said that he hoped the "people in power" were making the right decisions overseas and encouraged Americans to support the United States.

"I just hope they're right and I hope we get something accomplished out of all this after all the sacrifice we've made and the rest of the country has sacrificed," he said, choking back tears during the emotional interview.' www.abcnews.go.com

"I just hope..." I wonder if stubborn insistence that the invasion was justified and that things are working out is based on this kind of understandable need - a hope that there has been some point to all the death and destruction. The alternative - that there was no good reason for the invasion, and that it has been bungled in any case - is maybe just too awful to contemplate. That's understandable, in terms of human emotion.

It doesn't tell us whether or not the surge is working, though.

Petraeus: Troop buildup is working

The Associated Press
Posted : Friday Aug 31, 2007 18:19:48 EDT

SYDNEY, Australia — America’s troop buildup in Iraq has sharply reduced sectarian killings and roadside bombings and lowered al-Qaida’s influence, the top U.S. general in the country said in an interview published Friday.
“We say we have achieved progress, and we are obviously going to do everything we can to build on that progress and we believe al-Qaida is off balance at the very least,” The Australian newspaper quoted Gen. David Petraeus as saying.

Petraeus said there had been a 75 percent drop in ethnic and religious killings since last year, a doubling in the number of seizures of insurgent weapons caches between January and August, a drop in the number of coalition deaths from roadside bombs, and an increase in the killing and capture of al-Qaida fighters, the newspaper said.

The rise in al-Qaida “kills and captures” had caused the group to lose influence with Sunni Muslims, he said.

Petraeus said the buildup, in which an additional 20,000 troops were deployed in Iraq, would continue for several more months and the troop level would then be phased down. He said the U.S.-led coalition would try to hold onto all the gains that had been made.

Petraeus is to testify on the troop buildup to Congress during the week of Sept. 10, and President Bush is to deliver his own progress report by Sept. 15. The reports are seen as key elements in the debate in Washington over how the war should be fought — and whether U.S. troops should be brought home.

A draft report by the independent Government Accountability Office, circulated this past week, concluded that Iraq has made little political progress in recent months despite the influx of U.S. troops.

A separate independent commission established by Congress to study Iraq’s security forces is expected to recommend scrapping the 25,000-member national police force and starting over because it is so corrupt and influenced by sectarianism.

The Australian said it interviewed Petraeus at his headquarters in Baghdad after he briefed visiting Australian Defense Minister Brendan Nelson on the situation in Iraq. Australia participated in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and still has about 1,600 troops in and around the country, 550 of them in combat roles.

Petraeus said the buildup strategy had turned U.S. forces into pursuers instead of defenders, “and that is a much better place to be.”

He said religious and ethnic killings, or “ethno-sectarian deaths,” were the most important measure of progress and that the number of people killed on religious and ethnic grounds in the capital was going down.

“If you look at Baghdad, which is hugely important because it is the center of everything in Iraq, you can see the density plot on ethno-sectarian deaths,” the newspaper quoted him as saying.

“It’s a bit macabre but some areas were literally on fire with hundreds of bodies every week and a total of 2,100 in the month of December ‘06, Iraq-wide. It is still much too high but we think in August in Baghdad it will be as little as one quarter of what it was,” it quoted Petraeus as saying.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/AP/story/221685.html

"Petraeus said there had been a 75 percent drop in ethnic and religious killings since last year..."


Since the general's statement doesn't mesh with the numbers from a great many other, respected organizations, it must be asked to what does he attribute the difference? Natural causes?

The figures below, from a post on the previous page, surely do not indicate a 75% drop. And if the figures for US deaths are taken in account, then al Qeada might just decide to remain "off balance".

Iraqi Deaths

Jan-06 590 Jan-07 1711
Feb-06 688 Feb-07 2864
Mar-06 901 Mar-07 2762
Apr-06 808 Apr-07 1521
May-06 969 May-07 1782
Jun-06 738 Jun-07 1148
Jul-06 1063 Jul-07 1458
Aug-06 2733 Aug-07 (partial) 1196


US Military Deaths in Iraq

2006..............2007
January 61.....January 82
February 53....February 81
March 30.....March 75
April 74.....April 102
May 69.....May 121
June 59.....June 98
July 42.....July 75
August 65.....August (partial)42

Could it be that the general is playing semantics? Something caused those Iraqi deaths. If that cause isn't "ethnic and religious killings", what is it? Bad water? Heat stroke? Or could the general simply be lying? (Imagine that, a US general lying about how well his command is doing.)

It's my opinion that the general wants his medal, too, just like the other boys who went along.