Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Iraq Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: After the Surge - It Wasn't Supposed to Work
swhitebull    9/8/2007 12:05:42 AM
link Thoughtful piece from - appropriately named - the American Thinker swhitebull
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT
SGTObvious       11/6/2007 9:18:42 AM

 Now is the time for patience, both in Baghdad and Washington. Victory in counterinsurgency, if such a thing exists, takes months, even years, to achieve. The only thing certain about this week's good news is that it will take a lot of work to produce more of it.



Plutarch, I'm stunned.  You've managed to post an essay by an author who apparently concludes that we must "Stay the Course", and is concerned about what could happen if we don't.
 
Code Pink would TP your house for that.
 
Phil Carter is one of the rare non-ignorant critics of the war.  I don't usually agree with him, but his disagreements are well thought out and provoke thinking in response, as opposed to the usual "Bush lied" "Illegal War!" "OilCheneyHaliburton" crowd.
 
SGTObvious

 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim       11/6/2007 1:53:03 PM
Okay, so from about June 2005 to about June 2007 the rate of terrorist/guerrilla attacks has been steadily increasing.  I suggest it's likely that in general so have the U.S. and the innocent Iraqi civilian casualty rates (but I don't know the specific numbers).  Since June 2007 until now the terrorist/guerrilla attacks have precipitously fallen, and as of today their rate is back down to about June 2005 levels.  Along come some people who are attempting to rationalize this recent, dramatic reversal over the last five months of a strong trend occurring over the previous two years as being only natural since all the targets have been killed or fled.
 
So the targets have only been killed and have only been fleeing since June 2007?
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

swhitebull    It Works   11/6/2007 2:22:05 PM
Deaths Fall To New Lows In Iraq

As the casualty rates in Iraq for American and Iraqi soldiers continue to decline, the focus shifts to civilian casualties. In order to stabilize the country, the security forces have to drive attacks and deaths down to the point where native security forces can take control and allow the US to concentrate on rebuilding efforts. In October, the Coalition showed continued progress towards that goal, with civilian casualties dropping... to a level not seen since 2005:

Iraq's civilian body count in October was less than half that at its height in January, reflecting both the tactical successes of this year's U.S. troop buildup and the lasting impact of waves of sectarian death squad killings, car bombings and neighborhood purges. ...

American commanders credit the buildup, which reached full strength in June, with slowing sectarian bloodshed.

They say the decision to send 28,500 more troops to Iraq has made a difference by allowing them to send soldiers to live on the fault lines between Sunni Arab and Shiite neighborhoods in Baghdad, and to conduct sweeping offensives in provinces east and south of the capital against strongholds of Shiite Muslim militias and Sunni militants linked to foreign insurgents.

 

Part of the progress has come from shifts in population that have created more homogeneous neighborhoods. Instead of mixing the various populations, shared areas such as Baghdad have instead transformed into self-segregated territories. It follows from a year-long sectarian battle that radicalized the various groups until the fighting finally began its decline after the surge.

Lt. General Ray Odierno held a briefing... earlier today explaining the statistics. As the slide below shows, all types of attacks have declined. and the numbers now resemble what the situation looked like in the month before the Golden Mosque bombing in February 2005. Found and cleared bombs declined slightly, but notice the big drop in detonated IEDs from the summer. Mortar and rockets attacks have dropped significantly, as have small-arms and grenade attacks.

The peak of the violence came this year as the surge troops arrived. Ever since the full implementation of General David Petraeus' counterinsurgency strategies, the violence has dropped and the terrorists have lost ground. Combined with the sharp decline in civilian violence, the data clearly shows progress in stabilizing Iraq and defanging the terrorists.

There remains plenty of work to do. None of it will be easy or quick. However, we can see that the change in command has taken us in the right direction -- and it's a direction we should continue to pursue.

 
 
swhitebull
 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch       11/6/2007 4:41:46 PM




 Now is the time for patience, both in Baghdad and Washington. Victory in counterinsurgency, if such a thing exists, takes months, even years, to achieve. The only thing certain about this week's good news is that it will take a lot of work to produce more of it.






Plutarch, I'm stunned.  You've managed to post an essay by an author who apparently concludes that we must "Stay the Course", and is concerned about what could happen if we don't.

 

Code Pink would TP your house for that.

 

Phil Carter is one of the rare non-ignorant critics of the war.  I don't usually agree with him, but his disagreements are well thought out and provoke thinking in response, as opposed to the usual "Bush lied" "Illegal War!" "OilCheneyHaliburton" crowd.

 

SGTObvious





Why do you assume that I am a left-wing radical just because I oppose the war?  You should expand your knowledge about American poltics, check out the Ron Paul thread on the US board or just google his name. Obviously there is a downturn in violence in Iraq.  If that's because of the surge then we are in big, big trouble.  If it is conditions beyond the surge (As I have posted about amid much ridicule), then we must understand those conditions.  If violence is just simmering under the surface then it really doesn't matter how long we stay since Iraq will eventually fall into that violence, next year or even ten years from now.
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       11/6/2007 8:50:13 PM
"If the surge is succeeding we are in big, big trouble?"
 
If your name is Harry Reid, then yes, I agree completely.
 
Plutarch, one thing you and Ron Paul share in common is the apparent belief in a Wayback Machine that will take us to January 2003 or preferably, September 10, 2001.  It doesn't exist.  We are in Iraq, that will not change, and I do think we owe it to them and ourselves to try and win the frigging war.
 
I would think that you would find it a good thing that we are making progress, because that means that, if it continues, we bring the troops home and call it a day.  But I think you are so blinded by BDS that any good news is bad, because it hurts your platform that Bush=evil.  If Bush ended world hunger tomorrow, you'd be upset because it puts renewed pressure on farmers or something. 
 
For the 1023th time: you'd rather lose the war than admit any mistake.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Bob       11/6/2007 11:11:28 PM
Oh man, Plutarch is a Paulian too.
 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch       11/6/2007 11:55:48 PM

Plutarch, one thing you and Ron Paul share in common is the apparent belief in a Wayback Machine that will take us to January 2003 or preferably, September 10, 2001.  It doesn't exist.  We are in Iraq, that will not change, and I do think we owe it to them and ourselves to try and win the frigging war.

 

Our presence there the last 4.5 years certainly didn?t help the 5 million Iraqis who fled---oh yeah minus the 3,000 families but + the 50,000 Iraqis who still leave per month.

 

I would think that you would find it a good thing that we are making progress, because that means that, if it continues, we bring the troops home and call it a day.  But I think you are so blinded by BDS that any good news is bad, because it hurts your platform that Bush=evil.  If Bush ended world hunger tomorrow, you'd be upset because it puts renewed pressure on farmers or something. 

 

I don?t think Bush is evil, I think he is incompetent. I also don?t think we are leaving Iraq anytime soon, something about 14 permanent bases I keep hearing.  Also advocates of the war keep telling me we can?t leave just yet because the violence could be worse if we do.  Heck we still have bases in Germany and Japan 60 years after WWII, so there?s no reason to think we are going anywhere, violence or no violence. 

 

For the 1023th time: you'd rather lose the war than admit any mistake.

 

So what do we win in Iraq besides a way-station for our troops?  Do the Iraqi people like our presence there or do they just tolerate it? How difficult will it be to keep bases there amid a hostile population?  And if Maliki and his terrorist organization cum political party kick Americans out how will Iraq be any different than it was before March 2003?  Troops or no troops I see an Iraq closely tied to Iran, which wasn?t the case with Saddam. I see an Iraq with a devastated economy. I see an Iraq sharply divided along ethnic and religious lines. And I see an Iraq that is undemocratic, hates Israel and still isn?t too fond of the US.  So yes congratulations the violence has gone down after it was up for 4 years in a war in which the US gained nothing at all, save the head of Saddam, an enemy who wasn?t a threat.  Senty you keep comparing this war to WWII, but you?ve got the analogy wrong, this is much more similar to the Third Punic War; a preemptive war against a non-threatening enemy in order to secure the growth of an empire.

 

 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       11/7/2007 4:33:42 AM
Coming from someone who thought the Iraqis were better off under Saddam, I'm not surprised at the comments, Plutarch.  The evidence is overwhelmingly against you, but you're still trying to find a way for us to lose.  No wonder you support Ron Paul.
 
This is why I've been avoiding posting on the Iraq board.  It's like slamming your head against a wall.  The Sunnis and the Shi'a could walk arm in arm to kiss the Kurds tomorrow, and Plutarch would find some way to say it's Bush's fault, we should withdraw, Iran will win, etc.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch       11/7/2007 11:52:31 AM

Coming from someone who thought the Iraqis were better off under Saddam, I'm not surprised at the comments, Plutarch.  The evidence is overwhelmingly against you, but you're still trying to find a way for us to lose.  No wonder you support Ron Paul.

 

This is why I've been avoiding posting on the Iraq board.  It's like slamming your head against a wall.  The Sunnis and the Shi'a could walk arm in arm to kiss the Kurds tomorrow, and Plutarch would find some way to say it's Bush's fault, we should withdraw, Iran will win, etc.

 



Well the economic conditions are clearly worse and violence was certainly more intense the last 4 years than the previous 4 years under Saddam the evidence seems overwhelming in that regard.  But since you have trouble figuring out the difference between Sunnis and Shiites, and keep refering to wars (all wars?) as the re-incarnation of WWII I think I will trust my own judgement on Iraq.
 
Quote    Reply

swhitebull       11/7/2007 9:22:14 PM
110807.jpg
 
 
swhitebull
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy