Also: Troop surge has worked (not that everything is great).
I hadn't previously given much thought to the surge and whether or not it's working. Since the war is wrong-headed and unConstitutional, saying the surge is working is a lot like saying "Our bank robbery is going smoothly".
Prior to having looked into it, I knew that Sadr either called for, or agreed to a ceasefire, which substantially lowered the level of violence.
I also knew that the number of soldiers there since the surge is far less than the number of soldiers that all of the military experts agreed we would need to effectively occupy Iraq.
What I didn't know was finer points about the Sons of Iraq, a so-called "Awakening Group" that has given up on fighting the American forces, and begun fighting AQI. There are between 80,000 and 160,000 members of these awakening groups, and they are on the US government's payroll.
That's right: the reason the surge appears to be working is that the US Government is paying people not to killed Americans. They are paying them $10 per day. According to a friend of mine who was stationed in Iraq, $10 to the average Iraqi is a good day's wages.
They also timed the Surge to begin about the same time the mixed Sunni/Shiite neighborhoods voluntarily segregated... with bloody results.
Just when you thought it was safe to trust your government...
Also, I want to say right here, that Knight of BAAWA called it. I heard him on voice chat in Yahoo, months prior to the invasion of Iraq, that Iraq is none of our business, and that it will just turn into a bloodbath.
"But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant."
-- 1 Corinthians 14:38
Savant Newbie First Class
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Posts: 49
Location: Manteca, CA (USA)
Posted:
Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:44 pm
I think you're examining this too closely. "Surge" quite deliberately implies excess... as if all was running just fine, but now we've decided to deliver a knockout punch.
If Bush sent too few troops to a war, he shouldn't get away with making a correction *years into it* and having it called a "surge".
It's not a surge. It's a correction to a terrible mistake - for which he is ultimately responsible - delivered to us with the usual spin.
So, is the surge working? No. There is no surge.
Has the adjustment of troop levels improved the situation in Iraq?
Possibly, it's certainly proven to me that many of the deaths in the early years of the war were due to inadequate troop levels. And it's proven to me that the Bush administration has realized and reacted to it's mistake. And the world accepting this "Surge" term has proven to me that the Bush Administration is still actively marketing this war - quite successfully.
elitist Newbie
Joined: Jun 16, 2008
Posts: 13
Posted:
Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:09 pm
I'm no military analyst, but here's my two cents: The surge is working/worked to reduce casualties in Iraq but has done very little to stabilize Iraq or the region. It's like holding down the lid on a pressure cooker. The minute you ease off it explodes worse than it was before.
McDuffie For Congress is also right in that the "surge" is an extremely late correction to a terrible blunder. I'm personally of the opinion that we should either pull out as quickly as possible or massively increase troop levels to just get it over with (in which case I'd volunteer).
_________________ Feel free to email me at jongpil.yun@gmail.com with any questions or comments.
Saitou Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 02, 2002
Posts: 5018
Location: USA
Posted:
Sat Jul 12, 2008 3:45 am
McDuffie_for_Congress wrote:
Saitou wrote:
Also: Troop surge has worked (not that everything is great).
I hadn't previously given much thought to the surge and whether or not it's working. Since the war is wrong-headed and unConstitutional, saying the surge is working is a lot like saying "Our bank robbery is going smoothly".
Wrong-headed is a position reasonably held however unconstitutional seems blatantly false.
McDuffie_for_Congress wrote:
Prior to having looked into it, I knew that Sadr either called for, or agreed to a ceasefire, which substantially lowered the level of violence.
Here you wish to deflect credit for some of the improvements made. Our biases send us each to grant the credit to different things.
McDuffie_for_Congress wrote:
I also knew that the number of soldiers there since the surge is far less than the number of soldiers that all of the military experts agreed we would need to effectively occupy Iraq.
Again, rather than allow our nation's efforts any credit you find something negative to say.
McDuffie_for_Congress wrote:
That's right: the reason the surge appears to be working is that the US Government is paying people not to killed Americans. They are paying them $10 per day. According to a friend of mine who was stationed in Iraq, $10 to the average Iraqi is a good day's wages.
Sounds like a reasonable way to spend money. The goal is to get the Iraqi government to the strength where it can defend itself while limiting our own casualties as much as possible.
McDuffie_for_Congress wrote:
Also, I want to say right here, that Knight of BAAWA called it. I heard him on voice chat in Yahoo, months prior to the invasion of Iraq, that Iraq is none of our business, and that it will just turn into a bloodbath.
Knight is a smart guy. I disagree that it wasn't any of our business. I agree that many who thought it would be over quickly (including myself) were very much wrong about that.
Cygnus Graduate Thinker
Joined: Mar 26, 2008
Posts: 522
Posted:
Sat Jul 12, 2008 6:15 am
Quote:
I disagree that it wasn't any of our business.
How was it our business? We had absolutely no good reason to invade Iraq. We should have invaded in '91 right after kicking Saddam's ass out of Kuwait. That would have been a much better time to do it.
_________________ К чёрту вечность, какой в ней прок?
Cygnus Graduate Thinker
Joined: Mar 26, 2008
Posts: 522
Posted:
Mon Jul 14, 2008 12:41 am
Quote:
It's not a surge. It's a correction to a terrible mistake - for which he is ultimately responsible - delivered to us with the usual spin.
The terrible mistake was invading at that time in the first place. The sunnis and shi'as should have been considered. In order to have kept them quiet, we would have had to come down hard on the whole place with massive troop levels, and stayed there for many more years.
_________________ К чёрту вечность, какой в ней прок?
Saitou Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 02, 2002
Posts: 5018
Location: USA
Posted:
Sun Jul 27, 2008 6:54 am
Even the press can no longer deny reality (although they still do with the hoax of man caused global warming. That one will blow up soon enough also.)
Analysis: US now winning Iraq war that seemed lost
How was it our business? We had absolutely no good reason to invade Iraq. We should have invaded in '91 right after kicking Saddam's ass out of Kuwait. That would have been a much better time to do it.
Read the authorization for the use of force. It gives many reasons why it was our business. Don't let the myth that it was all and only about WMDs cloud things.
People act like it was all just the president's decision to go in or that he tricked everyone. Intellectually honest adults should not entertain such nonsense.
Brian37 Master of Logic
Joined: Oct 04, 2003
Posts: 9384
Posted:
Sun Jul 27, 2008 9:23 pm
When you multi task in several venues worldwide, certainly you can make things look better in some spots, but that ignores the overall health of the entire ability of the system.
Whatever "gains" claimed make other areas suffer. We can't now, even if we wanted to, take on Iran. We are spread too thin. Not only that the war was a mistake in the first place and is not only spreading our military too thin, it is driving our dept up and causes domestic issues to be ignored.
If Iraq was such a threat, it isn't as if Saddam had actually attacked us that our military is too stupid to look at a glob and say, "Hey guys, we cant attack them, we can't find Iraq".
The war was an egotistical whim of Bush based on selfish idealism. "Everybody loves a cowboy". Bush is a dipshit who is stuck in an an episode of Bonanza and thinks John Wayne politics is how you solve conflict.
Even if we "fix" Iraq, we will have in the process of multi tasking, taken away resources and national budget that could have been used to solve issues at home.
Brian37 Master of Logic
Joined: Oct 04, 2003
Posts: 9384
Posted:
Sun Jul 27, 2008 9:27 pm
Saitou wrote:
Cygnus wrote:
Quote:
I disagree that it wasn't any of our business.
How was it our business? We had absolutely no good reason to invade Iraq. We should have invaded in '91 right after kicking Saddam's ass out of Kuwait. That would have been a much better time to do it.
Read the authorization for the use of force. It gives many reasons why it was our business. Don't let the myth that it was all and only about WMDs cloud things.
People act like it was all just the president's decision to go in or that he tricked everyone. Intellectually honest adults should not entertain such nonsense.
It takes two to tango. I don't think that is anyone's argument that congress went along with him. The question is WHY? Bush's effective bullying and fearmarketing sold the war.
Still sore about the lack of WMDs? Your hero messed up and even people in his own camp are admitting it.
Cygnus Graduate Thinker
Joined: Mar 26, 2008
Posts: 522
Posted:
Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:28 am
When the WMD's couldn't be found by weapons inspectors in the 2000's, Bush still went ahead. Past suspicions from the 90's that have been proven wrong by more recent inspections are no reason to invade anyone. Whether or not Saddam still had some Kuwaiti goods is also none of our business. And all over the world, countries abuse their citizens and we still don't raise a finger for them.
_________________ К чёрту вечность, какой в ней прок?
View next topic View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
* You can syndicate our news and blog using the file