'...Mounting evidence, in a variety of official reports in recent weeks, that Iraqi forces won't be prepared to take over from American troops in significant numbers until late next year at the earliest, and that Iraqis have made little progress toward political reconciliation.

"Barring that, no amount of troops and no amount of time will make much of a difference," Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen told the Senate Armed Services Committee...' www.mcclatchydc.com

Soap play (9/11/07)

Surge is working.... Surge failed..... tamed sheep argue in web site. The inside group is happy. They push out a general to flame the debate to make it a soap play.

The fact is: the surge is for Iran war. Bush needs more troops for the war so they invent a "surge". That's what you saw in follow stage:

1. When Democrates who newly controlled the House and said they would fight against Bush's Iraq war policy suddenly surrendered in May and released the Iraq war fund to Bush. The Inside group has made up their mind to start war on Iran. The politicians follow up the order.

2. The troops were increased in Iraq the following month. It was planned to be used for Iran war but the surge is in the name to surpress the insurgence in Iraq.

3. When the troops was ready, there was a three months plan for the war. (July to September)

(1) Bush needs an excusee to attack Iran. A massive terror attack will justify it.

(2) The terror attack is likely a dirty bomb attack or a real nuclear bomb attack. To justify the source of nuclear material, they had a secret deal with Russia. Russian leader Putin was invited to Bush's private ranch in Main in early July. After that, Russian escalates its cold war action by sending its strategy bombers to Guan and England. It's an operation to cover up the secret collaberation of two countries.

(3) The terror attack was planned in early September. That's why we saw terror case in Germany and Bin Laden released his tape at that time. We also knew the inside group planned to make a fortune in stock market on that terror attack .

4. When that plan seems go soured, they let out a general to prolong the stay of US troops in Iraq. The Inside group still prepare for another new plan.

It's a pitty to see the tame sheep busy to debate on surge - a fake issue.

Here is their three month plan:
Re:

U.S. Terror Attack - 'Ninety Days at Most'

Jul 02 10:20:33 2007
Counterterrorism expert Juval Aviv spoke with FOX Fan Central about what Americans can do to protect themselves in case of a terror attack.

Do you believe another terrorist attack is likely on American soil?

I predict, based primarily on information that is floating in Europe and the Middle East, that an event is imminent and around the corner here in the United States. It could happen as soon as tomorrow, or it could happen in the next few months. Ninety days at the most.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161962,00.html

Quote, "$4.5 billion options bet on catastrophe within four weeks

Anybody have a clue as to what these 'investors' are expecting?
August 26, 2007

http://mparent7777-2.blogspot.com/2007/08/45b-bet-on-an...-within-4-weeks.html

do dah doo dah!

More reports of people strolling the streets safely again, with violence declining.

In this case, however, it's in Basra, and the improvement is being put down to British withdrawal.

Tut tut, Charles. Such negativity only aids the enemy - the more you say withdrawal isn't working, the more of a chance it won't work.

Actually, if you read the full quote - 'Basra city councillor Munadhil al-Mayahi said security had deteriorated over the past three months.

"Political assassinations have increased, armed robberies have increased, kidnappings have increased," he said.

"But this has nothing to do with the British withdrawal. All that changed after the British troops left was that bombardment of the palace stopped."' - it's clear that Munadhil al-Mayahi is saying that neither the presence nor the absence of British troops made much of a difference to the security situation.

It's maybe the same with the Americans; even with the surge, there just aren't enough troops to make any lasting difference in the absence of political progress.

LMAO, have you all got your (when the troops start pulling out because the surge worked) statements about why it really didn't work ready for print?

Do you have any evidence - apart from those isolated, tactical successes such as in Al Anbar - that the surge strategy is likely to work, before troops have to start leaving next spring, because the US has run out of army? What political progress has there been?

'The UN refugee agency has said the options for Iraqis fleeing violence are being narrowed by an increasing number of provinces refusing them entry.

The head of the UNHCR Iraq Support Unit told the BBC up to 11 governors were restricting access because they lacked resources to look after the refugees.

Andrew Harper warned that, with no imminent end to the displacement, Iraq was becoming a "pressure cooker"...' Iraq provinces 'limit refugees'

Once again; if the surge is working, providing security and enabling political progress, why is there a refugee crisis? Why can't people live safely in their own homes?

'Now the foreign editor of the well-connected Prospect magazine has gone one step further, reviving Bush's much ridiculed slogan of "mission accomplished" and declaring the Iraq war all but won...

...The evidence offered for this miraculous turnaround includes a recent drop in attacks on US and British forces, new local alliances between some Sunni tribal leaders, ex-resistance fighters and the US military against al-Qaida, and the participation of the popular anti-occupation Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr in the US-sponsored political process. But the argument is wishful thinking on a grand scale...' Claims of a turning point in Iraq are just wishful thinking

'But Gen Sanchez branded this so-called "surge" strategy a "desperate attempt" to make up for years of shortcomings.

"The best we can do with this flawed approach is stave off defeat," he warned.' US general damns Iraq 'nightmare'

'As Army captains who served in Baghdad and beyond, we've seen the corruption and the sectarian division. We understand what it's like to be stretched too thin. And we know when it's time to get out...

...Even with "the surge," we simply do not have enough soldiers and marines to meet the professed goals of clearing areas from insurgent control, holding them securely and building sustainable institutions. Though temporary reinforcing operations in places like Fallujah, An Najaf, Tal Afar, and now Baghdad may brief well on PowerPoint presentations, in practice they just push insurgents to another spot on the map and often strengthen the insurgents' cause by harassing locals to a point of swayed allegiances. Millions of Iraqis correctly recognize these actions for what they are and vote with their feet -- moving within Iraq or leaving the country entirely...' The Real Iraq We Knew (By 12 former Army captains)

quote:

Is the Surge working ?

.

Working better each day.

'Attempts by American-led reconstruction teams to forge political reconciliation, foster economic growth and build an effective police force and court system in Iraq have failed to show significant progress in nearly every one of the nation’s provincial regions and in the capital, a federal oversight agency reported on Thursday...

...There are bright spots in the effort to put together a functioning nation, Mr. Bowen found: economic growth in the Kurdish north; tribal reconciliation in the western desert province of Anbar; and patchy progress in the development of local governments...

...A central finding of the report, Mr. Bowen said in his testimony, was that even with 32 of the teams, called provincial reconstruction teams, or P.R.T.’s, now deployed around the country at a cost of $1.9 billion as of August, the program still has not developed concrete methods to measure the effects of the teams on progress in the country...' www.nytimes.com

Scotty, how do you know the surge is 'working better each day' when the people dedicated to researching just this question aren't sure, but think progress is patchy at best?

quote:

[By Aseel Kami

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Violence in Iraq has dropped by 70 percent since the end of June, when U.S. forces completed their build-up of 30,000 extra troops to stabilize the war-torn country, the Interior Ministry said on Monday.
/QUOTE]


[QUOTE] While the leaders have failed to agree on key laws aimed at reconciling the country's warring sects, the troop buildup has succeeded in quelling violence.[/QUOTE]


[QUOTE] Interior Ministry spokesman Major-General Abdul-Karim Khalaf told reporters that there had been a 70 percent decrease in violence countrywide in the three months from July to September over the previous quarter.

quote:

In Baghdad, considered the epicenter of the violence because of its mix of Shi'ites and Sunni Arabs, car bombs had decreased by 67 percent and roadside bombs by 40 percent, he said. There had also been a 28 percent decline in the number of bodies found dumped in the capital's streets.

In Anbar, a former insurgent hotbed where Sunni Arab tribes have joined U.S. forces against al Qaeda, there has been an 82 percent drop in violent deaths.


REF

The military surge is making progress in areas, but a lot is left to be done. I think that this shows that it is working.

Scotty, I hope you are right. I am just concerned that the figures may be just another re-defining of terms.

quote:

The military surge is making progress in areas, but a lot is left to be done.

Interesting article, Scotty, and finally something we agree on. In some areas, there has been progress in military terms, yes, and there is a lot left to be done in order to secure that progress.

But I think this shows it might work, if there is some political progress, and if the terror hasn't simply been displaced -

"However, in the northern province of Nineveh, where many al Qaeda and other Sunni Arab militants fled to escape the crackdown in Baghdad and surrounding region, there had been a 129 percent rise in car bombings and a corresponding 114 percent increase in the number of people killed in violence."

And if other trouble spots don't appear -

"While the figures confirm U.S. data showing a positive trend in combating al Qaeda bombers, there is growing instability in southern Iraq, where rival Shi'ite factions are fighting for political dominance."

And if the drop in violence isn't down to ethnic cleansing, and thus the Balkanisation of Iraq -

"The number of Iraqis fleeing their homes has soared since the American troop increase began in February, according to data from two humanitarian groups, accelerating the partition of the country into sectarian enclaves." www.nytimes.com

"The polarization of communities is most evident in Baghdad, where the Shia are a clear majority in more than half of all neighborhoods and Sunni areas have become surrounded by predominately Shia districts. Where population displacements have led to significant sectarian separation, conflict levels have diminished to some extent because warring communities find it more difficult to penetrate communal enclaves." NIE

Oh, yes, and if those statistics are accurate -

"...good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals" Iraq Study Group

'While top U.S. commanders say the statistics of violence have registered a steep drop in Baghdad and elsewhere, the soldiers' experience in Sadiyah shows that numbers alone do not describe the sense of aborted normalcy -- the fear, the disrupted lives -- that still hangs over the city...' 'I Don't Think This Place Is Worth Another Soldier's Life'

On Sept 11, 2001, you lost 3000 people out of a population of over three hundred million. You lose over ten times that many each year in car wrecks and by murdering each other with weapons that should be illegal. So each of you is in very little danger of becoming dead from terrorist attack. You are doing each other in at a quite satisfactory rate without outside assistance.

But in revenge for the 2001 attack, you have invaded two countries, and you are rattling your sabres at a few more. You have killed hundreds of thousands of ordinary people, non-combatants, ordinary citizens, and lost thousands of your own soldiers, spent over half a trillion dollars. You have irreparably soiled your nation's honor and standing among nations. But you still haven't caught those responsible for the attack.

Yet your leaders tell you that you are 'winning'. Spin the news all you like, this does not look like winning. You are bankrupting your economy and your military, while losing your liberties and freedoms in the process.

A feat even the Nazis were not able to impose on you, you inflict upon yourselves.