The Surge is working...maybe.

[headhuntersix]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QRMCU00&show_article=1

In two weeks of observing the U.S. military on the ground and interviewing commanders, strategists and intelligence officers, it's apparent that the war has entered a new phase in its fifth year.

It is a phase with fresh promise yet the same old worry: Iraq may be too fractured to make whole.

No matter how well or how long the U.S. military carries out its counterinsurgency mission, it cannot guarantee victory.....

Pretty good article, sums up how I and many in the Service feel. My question to the Dems and other would be...What happens if the Surge works and we could see cold hard proof that things are getting better. I don' think we're going to see solid proof that the American people could interpret as it working. I think it will be more obvious proof to the Military and analysts. But what if we could see proof that it was working, proof that anybody could see. Do we still draw down, pull out? What happens if we win. Bush gets blamed for a very slow and poor start but in the end we win.....maybe? I think its to far gone but......

[OzmO]

Somethings don't make much sense to me. 

All we needed after 4 years was 21,000 more troops to make things better?

BUSH will get blamed for 4 years of incompetence.  Nothing can change that. 

Personally,  i don't think the juice is worth the squeeze in Iraq.  Never thought it was.

[headhuntersix]

500,000 troops in the beginning and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[Decker]

Petraeus is a Bush company man.  I predict that he will say exactly what Bush wants him to say about the 'Surge.'

[OzmO]

Petraeus is a Bush company man.  I predict that he will say exactly what Bush wants him to say about the 'Surge.'

I've been told there is no way to make it to General unless you are a "yes" man. 

[Al Doggity]

Pretty good article, sums up how I and many in the Service feel. My question to the Dems and other would be...What happens if the Surge works and we could see cold hard proof that things are getting better. I don' think we're going to see solid proof that the American people could interpret as it working. I think it will be more obvious proof to the Military and analysts. But what if we could see proof that it was working, proof that anybody could see. Do we still draw down, pull out? What happens if we win. Bush gets blamed for a very slow and poor start but in the end we win.....maybe? I think its to far gone but......

I think an important factor here is that this is a war without a purpose. Whenever Bush calls this a fight against terrorism, I get so irritated by how stupid that sounds. There is no way you can win a war against terrorism. You can only manage it to limit it. We see that the anytime America turns its back on Afghanistan, the taliban starts to regroup. The insurgency is going to have a bottomless supply of available recruits as long as we're occupying Iraq. Even if we manage to stabilize the country, if we ever leave, it will fall apart.

[Decker]

I've been told there is no way to make it to General unless you are a "yes" man. 

Tell that to MacArthur....I mean if he were alive today.

[headhuntersix]

I think u can build up countries like Iraq and Afghanistan to the point where they do it themselves. I think the name is dumb. But I think the we tried to go with politically correctish names so...GWOT is what u get. The war hasa purpose, but it might not have an end. Bush never said it would. The fronts might change, but the war will continue, whether it be active or dormant at times is a different story.

[OzmO]

Tell that to MacArthur....I mean if he were alive today.

Tell that to the "American Caesar"?   

 

[headhuntersix]

Petraeus is a Bush company man.  I predict that he will say exactly what Bush wants him to say about the 'Surge.'

Hell no he's not. Ever meet the guy....he loves the US Army and would not want it destroyed. These guys were all around well before Bush. Decker, come on....u know better. I've met him, he's a good man. There are plenty of worthless Generals, its like that in any organization. Not this guy.

[Decker]

Hell no he's not. Ever meet the guy....he loves the US Army and would not want it destroyed. These guys were all around well before Bush. Decker, come on....u know better. I've met him, he's a good man. There are plenty of worthless Generals, its like that in any organization. Not this guy.

He's a very competent man and I'm sure his soldiers love him. 

But he made up his mind about Iraq's progress back in 2004:

"Now, however, 18 months after entering Iraq, I see tangible progress. Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt from the ground up."

"Momentum has gathered in recent months. With strong Iraqi leaders out front and with continued coalition -- and now NATO -- support, this trend will continue. It will not be easy, but few worthwhile things are."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49283-2004Sep25.html

I would bet the farm that he repeats the "momentum has gathered..." spiel in his September report.

The NIE from 2004 was so pessimistic in its analysis and conclusions over IRaq that the Bush people discounted it outright.

"As described by the officials, the pessimistic tone of the new estimate stands in contrast to recent statements by Bush administration officials, including comments on Wednesday by Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, who asserted that progress was being made."

"Its pessimistic conclusions were reached even before the recent worsening of the security situation in Iraq, which has included a sharp increase in attacks on American troops and in deaths of Iraqi civilians as well as resistance fighters." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/16/politics/16intel.html?ex=1252987200&en=f2344cc156ca79c7&ei=5090

So where Petraeus sees solid progress and positive momentum in Iraq back in 2004, the classified NIE from the same time period shows the opposite is occurring.

Do you see the problem I have with the general's objectivity?

[headhuntersix]

Things were'nt so bad in 2004. I don't know about any of that. We talking about now. We can all see that the security situation was poor and growing worse during that time. He was commenting on training and equiping Iraqi units. Anyway its about know..whether we pull out or stick....here's what some Dems from Clintons's administration say.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2007/7/31/is-the-surge-working.html

Yes, comes the answer from Brookings Institution scholars Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, in yesterday's New York Times. They write, after an eight-day trip to Iraq, with careful qualifications and with some stinging criticism of the Bush administration (perhaps to reassure readers that it really is the Times they're reading). Here is one key passage:

We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily "victory" but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

Their conclusion:

How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.

O'Hanlon specializes in military affairs; Pollack is an expert on Iraq and Iran. Both are Democrats; Pollack served on the national security adviser's staff in the Clinton administration. Both are first-class scholars whom I have long respected, though they differ from me in significant respects on foreign policy. For other comments on their article, see this symposium in National Review Online.

Their argument is one many Democrats in Congress don't want to hear. Literally. This is the transcript of the response of freshman Rep. Nancy Boyda of Kansas at a House Armed Services Committee hearing last Friday to the optimistic testimony of Gen. Jack Keane, one of the original advocates of the surge:

[Decker]

Things were'nt so bad in 2004. I don't know about any of that. We talking about now. We can all see that the security situation was poor and growing worse during that time. He was commenting on training and equiping Iraqi units. Anyway its about know..whether we pull out or stick....here's what some Dems from Clintons's administration say.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2007/7/31/is-the-surge-working.html

Yes, comes the answer from Brookings Institution scholars Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, in yesterday's New York Times. They write, after an eight-day trip to Iraq, with careful qualifications and with some stinging criticism of the Bush administration (perhaps to reassure readers that it really is the Times they're reading). Here is one key passage:

We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily "victory" but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

Their conclusion:

How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.

O'Hanlon specializes in military affairs; Pollack is an expert on Iraq and Iran. Both are Democrats; Pollack served on the national security adviser's staff in the Clinton administration. Both are first-class scholars whom I have long respected, though they differ from me in significant respects on foreign policy. For other comments on their article, see this symposium in National Review Online.

Their argument is one many Democrats in Congress don't want to hear. Literally. This is the transcript of the response of freshman Rep. Nancy Boyda of Kansas at a House Armed Services Committee hearing last Friday to the optimistic testimony of Gen. Jack Keane, one of the original advocates of the surge:

Pollack and O'Hanlon are bullshit artists that have always supported the conquering of Iraq.  The veneer of plausibility from their 'democrat' and 'NY Times" ties is just window dressing.

Just like Judith Miller, Pollack and O'hanlon are neocon whores and they broadcast their 'liberal' writings on the front page of the 'liberal' NY Times.

You know they might fool some people but just look at the book Pollack authored:
The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq http://www.amazon.com/Threatening-Storm-Case-Invading-Iraq/dp/0375509283

Why maybe you are right, they are typical liberals opposed to the war yet grudgingly admitting that Bush and his Surge are working.

Over 4 years, 700 billion spent, 10s of thousands dead and Baghdad is still not secure.

[BayGBM]

If we haven’t won after four years, we are not going to win.  Accept it, and get out.  There is no shame in getting your ass kicked, accepting defeat, and moving on.

You have Rumsfeld to thank for this loss. 

[headhuntersix]

First off..we are not getting our asses kicked...and besides this is ur damm countryas well, except u (collectively)have sacrificed nothing, not a damm fucking thing. So, if we in the Military, are a little hesitant about leaving before we have something,anything, to show for the dead and wounded comrades, broken marriages and large chunks of normal life, now missing from our lives, u might have to forgive us. And don't give that 'You signed up crap" We signed up to defend this country for you. Once in,  we don't decide where to get sent. I don't see long lines at the recruiting office. I will be in the Army long after this war is over and I don't want to go through the Post Iraqi war crap like we did after Nam. And keep in mind, if the surge is working, we'll be there longer, and I'll have to go back. I don't mind at all.

[Decker]

If we haven’t won after four years, we are not going to win....

You really have to talk to Cheney then.

Remember when Cheney went on all the Sunday morning talkshows to garner support for the war by pointing out the Judith Miller NY Times artices re WMDs and Iraq?

Well, that was a scam b/c she was a whitehouse mole.

Now the pattern repeats itself with Cheney going on Larry King and using the questionable Pollock/O'Hanlon story to show just how well things are going in Iraq thanks to the surge.

"made significant progress now into the course of the summer. ... Don't take it from me. Look at the piece that appeared yesterday in The New York Times, not exactly a friendly publication — but a piece by Mr. O'Hanlon and Mr. Pollack on the situation in Iraq. They're just back from visiting over there. They both have been strong critics of the war."  Dick Cheney on Larry King

And what do you know?  The NY Times is the paper cited...again.

How stupid do they think we are?

[headhuntersix]

Hey these are your guys, now that they finda glimmer of hope you hate em. Either way that was just one article out of many who are finding that the surge is working. My question was Now what?

[Decker]

First off..we are not getting our asses kicked...and besides this is ur damm countryas well, except u (collectively)have sacrificed nothing, not a damm fucking thing. So, if we in the Military, are a little hesitant about leaving before we have something,anything, to show for the dead and wounded comrades, broken marriages and large chunks of normal life, now missing from our lives, u might have to forgive us. And don't give that 'You signed up crap" We signed up to defend this country for you. Once in,  we don't decide where to get sent. I don't see long lines at the recruiting office. I will be in the Army long after this war is over and I don't want to go through the Post Iraqi war crap like we did after Nam. And keep in mind, if the surge is working, we'll be there longer, and I'll have to go back. I don't mind at all.

HH it is comforting illusion to think that the US military is defending us in Iraq but it is not.  I get no satisfaction in saying that.

Is the Surge working?  I don't know and I don't care. 

The same tired ploys are being used to build support for a failed foreign policy...right down to the same newspaper used to deceive the public as it had with the run up to war in 2002.

My stance is that nothing good can come of this invasion and continued occupation

I also think that we will not get a straight answer from Petraeus, Bush or anyone associated with this administration regarding more of the same aka the Surge.

The US military securing 1/2 of Baghdad is not progress HH.

[headhuntersix]

Well thats whats wrorng with the Libs and Americans in general. You (Americans) want a quick fix to a complex problem that you have no hope of understanding. Americans and the military have grown extemely far apart. You don't understand warfare, nor should u have to. But I think u should understand how complex 4th generation warfare is. Understand or have heard that term or others like the 3 block war, which describes conflicts like Iraq. U don't have a good concept of military history, beyond broad strokes. And most importantly many have been blinded by Bush hate so much that you won't except the word of a 3 Star General who is doing his job brilliantly in a type of warfare that is almost impossible to win in the modern era of BS ROE's and constant media attention.  You would be blown away by how we conduct and plan combat operations. How we see and deal with complex problems on a daily basis. Or how important these people will be to the future success of this country, on and off the battlefield. We fought the same type of war in the Philippines. We employed Gattling guns and developed the Colt .45 to deal with the insurgency. There was no media and no BS ROE. We fought a fanatical enemy and we crushed them. We would loose that war today.

Sure u can debate on whether we should be there, but we're there,and being there we should win. I won't except loosing as an outcome. Especially as we're in a situation where victory, defined by an Iraqi governement able to maintain its own security, freeing US troops to hunt AQ. Its not your problem, its America's problem. The concept of a defeated Army is alien to this current crop of Americans. Yet the remifications of such an event are huge..case in point, this guy.

http://washingtontimes.com/article/20070806/FOREIGN/108060029/1001
Chavez consolidates control over military

SANTA CRUZ, Bolivia — Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has moved to tighten his control over his nation's armed forces, which he has equipped with the most powerful arsenal in the region, according to military officials and defense analysts.
In a command reshuffle last month, Mr. Chavez replaced his defense minister, Gen. Raul Baduel, with Gen. Gustavo Rangel, who previously commanded a 100,000-strong militia established by Mr. Chavez to protect his regime and resist any U.S. invasion.......

[Decker]

Well thats whats wrorng with the Libs and Americans in general. You (Americans) want a quick fix to a complex problem that you have no hope of understanding. Americans and the military have grown extemely far apart. You don't understand warfare, nor should u have to. But I think u should understand how complex 4th generation warfare is. Understand or have heard that term or others like the 3 block war, which describes conflicts like Iraq. U don't have a good concept of military history, beyond broad strokes. And most importantly many have been blinded by Bush hate so much that you won't except the word of a 3 Star General who is doing his job brilliantly in a type of warfare that is almost impossible to win in the modern era of BS ROE's and constant media attention.  You would be blown away by how we conduct and plan combat operations. How we see and deal with complex problems on a daily basis. Or how important these people will be to the future success of this country, on and off the battlefield. We fought the same type of war in the Philippines. We employed Gattling guns and developed the Colt .45 to deal with the insurgency. There was no media and no BS ROE. We fought a fanatical enemy and we crushed them. We would loose that war today.

Sure u can debate on whether we should be there, but we're there,and being there we should win. I won't except loosing as an outcome. Especially as we're in a situation where victory, defined by an Iraqi governement able to maintain its own security, freeing US troops to hunt AQ. Its not your problem, its America's problem. The concept of a defeated Army is alien to this current crop of Americans. Yet the remifications of such an event are huge..case in point, this guy.

http://washingtontimes.com/article/20070806/FOREIGN/108060029/1001
Chavez consolidates control over military

SANTA CRUZ, Bolivia — Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has moved to tighten his control over his nation's armed forces, which he has equipped with the most powerful arsenal in the region, according to military officials and defense analysts.
In a command reshuffle last month, Mr. Chavez replaced his defense minister, Gen. Raul Baduel, with Gen. Gustavo Rangel, who previously commanded a 100,000-strong militia established by Mr. Chavez to protect his regime and resist any U.S. invasion.......

I know enough about military warfare to comprehend the assertion that new ROE for troops just means more discretion to shoot without accountability. 

I also know that terrorism is not a problem that can be solved militarily.  It requires police work, help from our allies, and negotiations with our enemies.

Aside from that, yes I hate Bush for what he's done but "blind hatred" implies a hatred that is unwarranted or without object.

I hate Bush b/c he fabricated a threat to the US posed by Iraq and he illegally ordered the invasion of a country with no ties to the attacks of 9/11.

I would say that my contempt for the man is informed and justified....hardly blind.

As a student of military history you should know better than to reference the US's annexation of the philipines as some sort of a success.  Anywhere from a quarter of a million to a million filipinos died.  Is that the sort of success we want in Iraq?

We are there illegally and I don't accept the argument that, well, we're there already so let's see this thing through.

That is not good enough.  With reasoning like that we would continue to march off the cliff instead of doing an about-face. (Ron Paul quote)

That is the rationale of any oppressive regime.  The US is better than that. 

[headhuntersix]

I'll try to go point by point...

Our ROE especially during the invasion was crazy at times. You show your contempt of the militray by assuming we'd just mow down civilians..not true and you know it.

Terrorism is not a police issue..this is crazy and no real anti terrorism expert is going to agree. Such agencies can play a part. Big at times, small at other, but not the driving force.These are not Germans or Russians or anybody we have ever faced. We can't talk to them..so forget it.

The Philippine insurrection as a military operation was a success. We fought and defeated the same type of enemy, in very hard terrain. People die in war, its an unpleasant but pretty standard outcome. If more Americans understood the realties of combat, we might have the will to win this war in a very quick manner. This would save the lives of many Iraqi's. Th rest, illiegal war stuff..I'm not getting into..we both disagree...enough said.

[dizzleman06]

If we haven’t won after four years, we are not going to win.  Accept it, and get out.  There is no shame in getting your ass kicked, accepting defeat, and moving on.

You have Rumsfeld to thank for this loss. 

What you just said is fucking reason we haven't already won...You are a pussy.  If we would have went in strong, then we would even be talking about this right now and your fruity ass could be down at the nearest martini bar having cosmos with your life partner...

[BayGBM]

What you just said is fucking reason we haven't already won...You are a pussy.  If we would have went in strong, then we would even be talking about this right now and your fruity ass could be down at the nearest martini bar having cosmos with your life partner...

We haven’t won because:

• the war was poorly managed (not enough troops, etc.)
• the war itself was unnecessary (Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11)

If we had kept our eye on the ball--Al Queda (which is as strong now as it was before 911) and Bin Laden--we wouldn’t be talking about this right now and your dumb ass would not be put in the laughable position of defending a failed leader with failed policies.  Given a choice between following the leadership of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld (I actually respect Gates) I’d rather be at a martini bar having a mojito (I don't drink cosmos) with my life partner.

[headhuntersix]

Both accurate points.....but i think that Bush has made other points that were valid about invading Iraq. My bottom line is twofold..what now, if the surge is working and I guess two...what happens if we leave. How will it affect America?

[Dos Equis]

Good points in this thread Headhunter.