Why is the media giving Obama a pass on the surge?

[tonymctones]

This may all be true.

But it still doesn't tell us if it was successful.  We'll know in 6 - 12 months.  Their leadership is in Iran, you say.  Once the USA leaves (which I don't think we shoudl do -fck what their leadership says), what is to stop them from coming back in and picking up where they left off? 

You might be right.  But to ASSUME that they won't be back to take on the unguarded streets once we leave is silly.

LOLWTF just the other week you were argueing the opposite...either way if the surge didnt work then we shouldnt be setting a timeline to pull out in 16 months...SAVIOR OBAMA IS WRONG ADMIT IT!!!!!

[240 is Back]

Oh brother, here is Samsonite, exploding with hate for America. Samson you must have a pending criminal or civil case against you or something, your a few clicks away from the nut house. 

don't attack him - attack what he wrote.

youandme, was the war about oil?  yes, no, or maybe?

[youandme]

don't attack him - attack what he wrote.

youandme, was the war about oil?  yes, no, or maybe?

No, I'll attack Somsonite all I want, the guy is bitter, racist, and has acknowledged that cops, and soldiers need to be harmed.

Most wars are based on economic reasoning, hopefully we see the end results.

[tonymctones]

this coming from the king of polls
LOL look at the causalties after and before the surge, look at the precious checkpoints you pointed out in another thread before and after the surge, your right i guess will have to wait and see.

so pulling out in 16 months would be bad then and drop the country back into tormoil...like i said...either way he was or is wrong.

This may all be true.

But it still doesn't tell us if it was successful.  We'll know in 6 - 12 months.  Their leadership is in Iran, you say.  Once the USA leaves (which I don't think we shoudl do -fck what their leadership says), what is to stop them from coming back in and picking up where they left off? 

You might be right.  But to ASSUME that they won't be back to take on the unguarded streets once we leave is silly.

LOLWTF just the other week you were argueing the opposite...either way if the surge didnt work then we shouldnt be setting a timeline to pull out in 16 months...SAVIOR OBAMA IS WRONG ADMIT IT!!!!!

bump for a response

[240 is Back]

No, I'll attack Somsonite all I want, the guy is bitter, racist, and has acknowledged that cops, and soldiers need to be harmed.
Most wars are based on economic reasoning, hopefully we see the end results.

Okay. 


I'm asking you, was the war about oil?  yes or now.

[tonymctones]

LOL dont answer YAM until he respondeds to my last three posts!!!

[240 is Back]

Obama's POV is that the surge was successful, but he believes his plan (which called for greater iraqi takeover to do all the surge wetwork and take the brunt of the surge allied force deaths) was the way to go.

Mccain wanted to use american boys to do the job, which spilled American blood in big numbers for those months.

obama wanted to use iraqi boys to do the job, which would have led to them being killed in greater numbers.

I guess mccain's way means he gets to claima  victory.  perhaps obama's way would have led to a victory as well, without destroying American families by losing their loved ones.

Look, I support both guys... they'll both do fine in office... but Mccain making the "surge worked, I rock!" platform isn't working with educated voters because they know Obama wanted a surge too - he just wanted Iraqis to be bleeding on the ground for it, not US soldiers.

[tonymctones]

Obama's POV is that the surge was successful, but he believes his plan (which called for greater iraqi takeover to do all the surge wetwork and take the brunt of the surge allied force deaths) was the way to go.

Mccain wanted to use american boys to do the job, which spilled American blood in big numbers for those months.

obama wanted to use iraqi boys to do the job, which would have led to them being killed in greater numbers.

I guess mccain's way means he gets to claima  victory.  perhaps obama's way would have led to a victory as well, without destroying American families by losing their loved ones.

Look, I support both guys... they'll both do fine in office... but Mccain making the "surge worked, I rock!" platform isn't working with educated voters because they know Obama wanted a surge too - he just wanted Iraqis to be bleeding on the ground for it, not US soldiers.

find me a quote or video where obama said the surge worked? plz i havent heard him say that once, im not saying he hasnt ive been busy the last few days and not on getbig or watching tv much so i may have missed it. Perhaps obamas way would have worked MAYBE, but for how long now has he been pushing for troops out of iraq...the simple fact is it is possible to talk about this b/c of the surge, the surge he didnt want. But he has been talking about pulling troops out soon before his trip to iraq and before he acknowledged(if he has) that the surge worked which means he would have left Iraq in tormoil.

Obama has said he would have put those troops in Afgahnistan so there would have causalties coming from there as well...which would have led to a worse iraq and likely a surge back into iraq to clean that up again.

plz post a quote reference or video for me.

[youandme]

We don't know if the surge worked yet.

The Council on Foreign Relations already conducted a study, which is old, and does not highlight the new and improved numbers.

"The analysis then examines statistics on Iraqi violence provided by the U.S. military, noting that the data provided by coalition forces in Iraq demonstrates a decline of over 45 percent in civilian casualties since the surge of additional American forces began early this year. According to the U.S. military, the decrease in civilian casualties was even greater in Baghdad, around 70 percent, which was one of the focus areas of the surge troops."


Also a recent article on Bloomberg, "Closure is what Obama seeks in Iraq. As he puts it, ``when I am Commander-in-Chief, I will set a new goal on day one: I will end this war.''"

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_shlaes&sid=awZ8YTBD0KDU

Even after the surge shows it's positive results this guy does not care.

Obama wants and THINKS he can get other countries to fight, yet has no background in even setting up a foreign negotiation on such a scale, how does he think he can do it....


by bringing ``big sticks and big carrots'' to the table when he goes to talk to Iran's leaders.

[CARTEL]

by bringing ``big sticks and big carrots'' to the table when he goes to talk to Iran's leaders.

I wanted to puke when I heard that crap 

[240 is Back]

find me a quote or video where obama said the surge worked? plz i havent heard him say that once, im not saying he hasnt ive been busy the last few days and not on getbig or watching tv much so i may have missed it. Perhaps obamas way would have worked MAYBE, but for how long now has he been pushing for troops out of iraq...the simple fact is it is possible to talk about this b/c of the surge, the surge he didnt want. But he has been talking about pulling troops out soon before his trip to iraq and before he acknowledged(if he has) that the surge worked which means he would have left Iraq in tormoil.

Obama has said he would have put those troops in Afgahnistan so there would have causalties coming from there as well...which would have led to a worse iraq and likely a surge back into iraq to clean that up again.

plz post a quote reference or video for me.

Obama with Couric from iraq yesterday.  MB, you have the youtube?  He said obviously it worked, but his way would have produced smiliar results with less AMERICAN bloodshed.

I've been saying for the last 2 years that we should be letting iraqis die in the streets of baghdad to secure their peace - NOT AMERICANS.  Obama said the same thing.  Mccain said our boys and girls should be the ones taking the bullets, right?  He used them for the surge, while Obama preferred to use their kids to do it.

Listen to that katie couric clip - anyone have it?  aired yesterday.

[Colossus_500]

        

[a_joker10]

Obama's plan was to leave.
How would have this brought success?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25573237/page/2/
Troops should be withdrawn, he said in 2006, but the president should “work with our military commanders” to figure out the best plan to do so.

“I am not suggesting this timetable be overly rigid,” he said.  “We should be willing to adjust to the realties on the ground.” What Obama said last week echoes this.

And the withdrawal, Obama said in 2006, “could be suspended if at any point U.S. commanders believe that a further reduction would put American troops in danger.”

The Brits did this to a disastrous result in Basra.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/06/AR2007080601401_pf.html
As British forces pull back from Basra in southern Iraq, Shiite militias there have escalated a violent battle against each other for political supremacy and control over oil resources, deepening concerns among some U.S. officials in Baghdad that elements of Iraq's Shiite-dominated national government will turn on one another once U.S. troops begin to draw down.

Three major Shiite political groups are locked in a bloody conflict that has left the city in the hands of militias and criminal gangs, whose control extends to municipal offices and neighborhood streets. The city is plagued by "the systematic misuse of official institutions, political assassinations, tribal vendettas, neighborhood vigilantism and enforcement of social mores, together with the rise of criminal mafias that increasingly intermingle with political actors," a recent report by the International Crisis Group said.

The American military had to help the Iraq soldiers retake Basra while the Brits hungout at the airport.
His plan wouldn't of worked.
Another free pass.

[Decker]

The Surge's goal, according to its proponents, was to escalate the US occupation of Baghdad in order to dampen the violence interferring with the Iraqi government's ability to meet the benchmark recommendations set out by Bush's handpicked Iraq Study Group.

The monthly deaths are down from a high of 4,000 Iraqis a month to about 500 Iraqis per month.

Have those handpicked benchmarks been met yet?  If yes, then it's a success.  If no, then it is not.

In moral terms, I think that 500 dead Iraqis a month after 5+ years of occupation is a bloody crime.

I just don't see the utility in patting ourselves on the back for fixing the mess we created in the first place.  5 years and 600 billion dollars later, the US still can't adequately protect the green zone.

[a_joker10]

15 of the 18 benchmarks have been met.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j2KfQBk9ZhPhOJZ7biQo-IkmdJoAD91L6L407

The White House sees the progress in a particularly positive light, declaring in a new assessment to Congress that Iraq's efforts on 15 of 18 benchmarks are "satisfactory" — almost twice of what it determined to be the case a year ago. The May 2008 report card, obtained by the Associated Press, determines that only two of the benchmarks — enacting and implementing laws to disarm militias and distribute oil revenues — are unsatisfactory.

http://www.nysun.com/editorials/victory-in-iraq/82194/
Democrats, who have tried to frame the Iraq debate as one over troop levels and troop casualties, will see the coming draw downs in that theater as a political victory. But this is a half truth. The distinction between the two parties, and for that matter the two candidates on the Iraq debate, is that one of them sought to betray Iraq when most of its territory was controlled by Islamic supremacist gangs, while the other saw it as America's strategic and moral obligation to beat back those parties who deliberately sought a civil war. When President Bush and Senator McCain tried to prevent what Democrats said was inevitable defeat, the Democrats accused them of prolonging the war. Now that the surge strategy has succeeded so much that Senator Obama has removed language criticizing the strategy on his Web site, the Democrats seek to claim a political victory made possible by the military one they tried so hard to prevent.

[Decker]

15 of the 18 benchmarks have been met.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j2KfQBk9ZhPhOJZ7biQo-IkmdJoAD91L6L407

The White House sees the progress in a particularly positive light, declaring in a new assessment to Congress that Iraq's efforts on 15 of 18 benchmarks are "satisfactory" — almost twice of what it determined to be the case a year ago. The May 2008 report card, obtained by the Associated Press, determines that only two of the benchmarks — enacting and implementing laws to disarm militias and distribute oil revenues — are unsatisfactory.

...

I hope that's the case.  I don't trust any report coming out of the White House.  The Bush Administration cannot be trusted on matters concerning Iraq b/c it has lied incessantly about the matter.

Now if the Benchmarks are met (all 18), then we can declare victory and come home and put this terrible mistake behind us.

[youandme]

       

LOL   

Good finds

[Eldon]

 

[Decker]

...

http://www.nysun.com/editorials/victory-in-iraq/82194/
Democrats, who have tried to frame the Iraq debate as one over troop levels and troop casualties, will see the coming draw downs in that theater as a political victory. But this is a half truth. The distinction between the two parties, and for that matter the two candidates on the Iraq debate, is that one of them sought to betray Iraq when most of its territory was controlled by Islamic supremacist gangs, while the other saw it as America's strategic and moral obligation to beat back those parties who deliberately sought a civil war. When President Bush and Senator McCain tried to prevent what Democrats said was inevitable defeat, the Democrats accused them of prolonging the war. Now that the surge strategy has succeeded so much that Senator Obama has removed language criticizing the strategy on his Web site, the Democrats seek to claim a political victory made possible by the military one they tried so hard to prevent.

The surge strategy can only be characterized as a success if you buy what the White House is selling--the benchmarks and the reduction in deaths in the runaway catastrophe that is Iraq.

I never accept what the white house pushes re Iraq b/c it's usually a disingenuous statement or lie.

500 Iraqis are dying monthly.  That doesn't scream success.

Fine.  The white house can characterize the Surge as a success but the IRaq invasion and occupation is a failure of epic proportion:  The single worst foreign policy mistake in US history.

The Surge will never erase the error of Bush ordering the invasion in the first place.

[a_joker10]

The surge strategy can only be characterized as a success if you buy what the White House is selling--the benchmarks and the reduction in deaths in the runaway catastrophe that is Iraq.

I never accept what the white house pushes re Iraq b/c it's usually a disingenuous statement or lie.

500 Iraqis are dying monthly.  That doesn't scream success.

Fine.  The white house can characterize the Surge as a success but the IRaq invasion and occupation is a failure of epic proportion:  The single worst foreign policy mistake in US history.

The Surge will never erase the error of Bush ordering the invasion in the first place.

I would think that would be Vietnam.

Very little was gained from that experience.
With larger casualties.

The point is Iraq isn't and should never be another Vietnam.

[Decker]

I would think that would be Vietnam.

Very little was gained from that experience.
With larger casualties.

The point is Iraq isn't and should never be another Vietnam.

Good point. 

[headhuntersix]

Which means we win and we leave....Decker winning means a stable Iraq able to defend itself internally and to some extent externally. The Iraqi's themselves, their military, feel that they won't be fully ready until 2015 for that and 2018 for the latter. That would mean 1 Divsion there until 2018 with all others pulled out by 2011/12 maybe...along with maybe a Bde sized training element. Thst what the current SOFA deal is working on, how long that last bit of force will be there for and what are we allowed to do.

[Dos Equis]

       

Hahahaha!   

[Decker]

Which means we win and we leave....Decker winning means a stable Iraq able to defend itself internally and to some extent externally. The Iraqi's themselves, their military, feel that they won't be fully ready until 2015 for that and 2018 for the latter. That would mean 1 Divsion there until 2018 with all others pulled out by 2011/12 maybe...along with maybe a Bde sized training element. Thst what the current SOFA deal is working on, how long that last bit of force will be there for and what are we allowed to do.

The issue that divides the Iraqi people is thousands of years old: the division is an ETHNIC DIVISION...not political.  As soon as the US leaves Iraq, the civil war will flare up like it did when the US overthrew the government.

This whole Iraq endeavor was not planned out and was executed poorly.

[headhuntersix]

So u have said....if the military can keep things together then that won't happen. These people are sick of war.