logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> The Surge in Baghdad (II), Is it working?
DaytonRocker
post Sep 9 2007, 02:07 PM
Post #1


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,520
Member No.: 547
Joined: February-26-03

From: Dayton, Ohio
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Republican



General Petraeus is set to report the status of the Surge in Iraq this week. It is anticipated he will give a mixed - yet positive report on the progress of the surge and ask for more time. Some are already doubting it's effectiveness. September was another "Friedman Unit" (New York Times reporter Tom Friedman is always asking for another 6 months) and the "magic" date to determine the course of action needed in Iraq.

Simple questions for debate:

1. Is the surge working?
2. Should this strategy be continued? If so, for how long?

*Note: The point of the other thread "Plan or Ploy" was meant to address whether the surge was a real strategy for victory as opposed to a political stunt. Since the other thread is too unwieldy, please discuss the surge's effectiveness here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
33 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
nemov
post Sep 9 2007, 02:17 PM
Post #2


******
sleeping is giving in...

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 448
Member No.: 5,152
Joined: June-17-05

From: Sarasota, FL
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



1. Is the surge working?

Couldn't the Surge be called the "Kerry Plan?" The Bush administration's biggest mistake (in my opinion of course) was not sending enough troops into Iraq. Bush was stubborn about this, probably because Rummy was adamantly opposed to more troops.

Now we've finally added more troops and it appears that it's working. Progress is always going to be slow. We probably need even more troops, but at this point it doesn't seem likely.


2. Should this strategy be continued? If so, for how long?

As long as it takes. Leaving Iraq before it's stable simply isn't an option. 10 years from now we'll likely have some kind of presence in Iraq. I wish someone in Washington would just be honest about this scenario. We still have troops in Bosnia and it's almost been ten years. Things like this don't change over night.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Contumacious
post Sep 9 2007, 02:39 PM
Post #3


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 176
Member No.: 7,930
Joined: August-24-07

From: Adjuntas, Puerto Rico
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



QUOTE(nemov @ Sep 9 2007, 09:17 AM) *
1. Is the surge working?

Couldn't the Surge be called the "Kerry Plan?" The Bush administration's biggest mistake (in my opinion of course) was not sending enough troops into Iraq. Bush was stubborn about this, probably because Rummy was adamantly opposed to more troops.

Now we've finally added more troops and it appears that it's working. Progress is always going to be slow. We probably need even more troops, but at this point it doesn't seem likely.


2. Should this strategy be continued? If so, for how long?

As long as it takes. Leaving Iraq before it's stable simply isn't an option. 10 years from now we'll likely have some kind of presence in Iraq. I wish someone in Washington would just be honest about this scenario. We still have troops in Bosnia and it's almost been ten years. Things like this don't change over night.



Some corrections are in order:

The Bush administration biggest problem was sending troops to Iraq. He had no Constitutional authority to invade a country solely because he wanted to grandstand for AIPAC while simultaneously letting his war profiteers friends - at KBR Halliburton - make a few gazillion dollars.

The ONLY reason that the surge is "working" is because the Shiites, the Sunnis and the Kurds have each decided to stay within the confines of their 'hoods.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CruisingRam
post Sep 9 2007, 03:47 PM
Post #4


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 7,934
Member No.: 927
Joined: July-25-03

From: Hawaii
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



1. Is the surge working?



No- because the entire focus of the surge was to allow some breathing room so the Shiites and the Sunni's could forge a political solution to the mess. As soon as the build up began, the lawmakers went home for the summer. mad.gif - As DTOM has said on the other thread on this subject- too little, to late.

The escalation (the "surge" is a stupid euphimism) was doomed the minute the political leaders in Iraq didn't capitalize on the (temporary) security the surge provided- but really, since it didn't even do that well in providing security- it was doomed 5 minutes after it started.


2. Should this strategy be continued? If so, for how long?

Only those that are "ra-ra-ing" should be in Iraq- it is a good place for them- withdraw now, and send in Rumsfeld and GW to hold down the fort- that is the best plan of all thumbsup.gif - bring the troops home yesterday- screw Iraq, and the horse it rode in on. mad.gif

We should have left Iraq the minute the different groups started warring with each other. It is asinine to referee a civil war.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nemov
post Sep 9 2007, 04:00 PM
Post #5


******
sleeping is giving in...

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 448
Member No.: 5,152
Joined: June-17-05

From: Sarasota, FL
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Contumacious @ Sep 9 2007, 10:39 AM) *
Some corrections are in order:

The Bush administration biggest problem was sending troops to Iraq. He had no Constitutional authority to invade a country solely because he wanted to grandstand for AIPAC while simultaneously letting his war profiteers friends - at KBR Halliburton - make a few gazillion dollars.

The ONLY reason that the surge is "working" is because the Shiites, the Sunnis and the Kurds have each decided to stay within the confines of their 'hoods.

Well, those aren't really "corrections." It's just a different opinion. The whole "should we have invaded Iraq" is a separate debate. It's too early to tell whether or not it was a mistake. A large majority agreed it was the right thing to do at the time. Today opinion is different, tomorrow it can change again. Conventional wisdom can be oh so unconventional sometimes. Anyway, that's off topic.

Not sending enough troops was a bad policy, and we now can see why. The chaos that came after the invasion made it easy for Al Qaeda and Iran's influence to grow. More troops would have prevented that from taking place.

Anyway the press coverage of Iraq is so poor that this perception of a "civil war" still continues. Michael Yon's (his work in Iraq has been unbelievable) last post on his Anbar series sums up what we face right now.

QUOTE
No one can predict the future, but all who are in a position of authority vis a vis our policy about Iraq should realize that something truly seems to have changed on the ground and momentum forward is accelerating this change. It is possible that fighting will begin to wind down in most areas of the country, as the security gains of the past few months begin to produce more and more of the collateral political, economic and social gains that have been inhibited largely by terror and fear.

And should that occur, we’ll need to decide what our next step will be. If we put our foot on the gas in helping Iraq stand again, Iraq could actually become a strong and firm partner of the United States. But it is equally possible that all the gains made to date will unravel before the eyes of the world, if we point that foot instead toward the door of a premature exit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Contumacious
post Sep 9 2007, 04:13 PM
Post #6


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 176
Member No.: 7,930
Joined: August-24-07

From: Adjuntas, Puerto Rico
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



QUOTE(nemov @ Sep 9 2007, 11:00 AM) *
Well, those aren't really "corrections." It's just a different opinion.


No sir , an opinion:

o·pin·ion /əˈpɪnyən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-pin-yuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

If I say to you that Ms Lindsay Lohan is the most beautiful girl in the universe I am stating an opinion.

But when I say to you that the invasion and the surge (escalation) are Constitutionally infirmed I am a stating a fact. When I state that the invasion was conducted in order to grandstand for AIPAC and KBR- Halliburton those assertions are factual.

Capisce?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Sep 9 2007, 08:02 PM
Post #7


Group Icon

**********
I think, therefore I am an enemy of the State....and Fox News

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,452
Member No.: 359
Joined: December-25-02

From: Nestled in the Shenandoah
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



1. Is the surge working?
I’m going to be brief, as I’ve probably covered most of this ground in the other thread. The surge is working, to an extent, based on the plan submitted in January. But it’s only working on the local level, to be successful it would need to work at the national level.
Security has improved, but has not stopped or mitigated the sectarian violence. Life has returned to normal in some neighborhoods, with markets and schools re-opening, but they are largely in homogenous sections of the city.
The Iraqi Security Forces, minus the Iraqi Army, are still too corrupt, too ineffective, and too rife with militia members to of any value. So much so that reports in the news have some calling for the disbandment of IP and NP.
Essential services such as water, power and sewage are making a comeback, but remain a target for opposition insurgent groups.
Neighborhood and District Action Councils are working well overall, but the Iraqi Parliament remains its own worst enemy. The Iraqi Government is not trusted by the people for a myriad of reasons, all of which spell defeat for any semblance of democracy.

2.Should this strategy be continued? If so, for how long?
As I’ve said before, the surge was a decent plan……..realistically the only plan that had a chance of working. But being conducted about two years too late will not fix Iraq, it will only result in more lives lost.
The US should begin withdrawing forces starting now. Units can start being pulled from the North and the West, reducing our footprint with minimal security risk. The entire drawdown could be completed within a year I believe, but I would attempt to broker a cease fire with the major players as we did this.

QUOTE(nemov Today @ 06:17 PM )
As long as it takes. Leaving Iraq before its stable simply isn't an option.

But it is an option, just not one that you agree with. I believe the threat of Iraq turning into a major base for terrorist operations, ala Al Qaeda is bogus. If anything, the Shia will dominate the central rump portion of Iraq and possibly align with Iran. I say possibly, because Jaysh Al-Mahdi and other Shia groups have developed and adjusted their strategy, harkening back to their previous Nationalistic stance with calls for unification of the Iraqi people, increased rhetoric supporting reconciliation and a highlighting of the current Iraqi governments inefficiency.
Leaving Iraq is most certainly an option to those who serve here. To a person, anytime I have ever heard or read somebody say that we should be there ‘as long as it takes’……….isn’t sacrificing or even remotely affected by the consequences of that statement.

QUOTE(contumacious Today @ 08:13 PM)
When I state that the invasion was conducted in order to grandstand for AIPAC and KBR- Halliburton those assertions are factual.

Thank you for further defining what constitutes an opinion, not a fact…………
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Contumacious
post Sep 9 2007, 08:27 PM
Post #8


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 176
Member No.: 7,930
Joined: August-24-07

From: Adjuntas, Puerto Rico
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Sep 9 2007, 03:02 PM) *
QUOTE(contumacious Today @ 08:13 PM)
When I state that the invasion was conducted in order to grandstand for AIPAC and KBR- Halliburton those assertions are factual.

Thank you for further defining what constitutes an opinion, not a fact…………


o·pin·ion /əˈpɪnyən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-pin-yuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

The facts identified hereinbelow clearly show that Contumacious assertions are factual:

(1) Bunnatine (Bunny) H. Greenhouse is a former chief contracting officer (Principal Assistant Responsible for Contracting (PARC)) of the United States Army Corps of Engineers. On June 27, 2005, she testified to a Democratic Party public committee, alleging specific instances of waste, fraud, and other abuses and irregularities by Halliburton with regard to its operations in Iraq since the Iraq War. She described one of the Halliburton contracts (secret, no-bid contracts awarded to Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR)—a subsidiary of Halliburton) as "the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career."

(2) Iraq War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Adviser

by Emad Mekay


WASHINGTON - IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 -- the 9/11 commission -- in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jaime
post Sep 9 2007, 11:20 PM
Post #9


Group Icon

**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Admin
Posts: 5,941
Member No.: 4
Joined: July-25-02

From: Down where the River meets the Sea
Gender: Female
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



There is a handful of you recently who keep taking topics off track. If this doesn't stop, we'll delete the off topic posts and issue strikes to all involved.

Focus on the debate questions.

TOPICS:

1. Is the surge working?
2. Should this strategy be continued? If so, for how long?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nebraska29
post Sep 10 2007, 01:44 AM
Post #10


*********
Only siths speak in absolutes.

Sponsor
November 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,712
Member No.: 1,871
Joined: November-29-03

From: York, Nebraska
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat




QUOTE
1. Is the surge working?
2. Should this strategy be continued? If so, for how long?


TIME has an excellent article that distills what the purpose of the surge was, as well as how the mixed results present a challenge for us in the future. We can't unilaterally declare it a failure as Biden has proclaimed. Neither can we view it as a complete success. The military component was designed to give the Iraqi politicians time and peace to create an adequate structure of government, as well as to train the military to take over eventually for us. The drop in violence in Baghdad as cited by the TIME articles proves that this short term military goal has been a success. The problem is that the al-Maliki government has failed to reach out to the other sectarian groups. We either have to keep it up and let him work it out, or come up with an alternative plan.

To answer the second question, I think we should keep the surge going, but we need to do away with al-Maliki and run with the Biden partition plan. His plan has been mischaracterized as carving up Iraq into three distinct nations, which is not the case. A federal entity is required to coordinate infrastructure, not to mention foreign policy. All other matters can be held in the semi-autonomous zones of each group.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Contumacious
post Sep 10 2007, 02:22 AM
Post #11


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 176
Member No.: 7,930
Joined: August-24-07

From: Adjuntas, Puerto Rico
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Sep 9 2007, 08:44 PM) *
QUOTE
1. Is the surge working?
2. Should this strategy be continued? If so, for how long?


TIME has an excellent article that distills what the purpose of the surge was, as well as how the mixed results present a challenge for us in the future. We can't unilaterally declare it a failure as Biden has proclaimed. Neither can we view it as a complete success.



Is the surge (escalation) working?

How is "working" defined?

How can a Judgment be made when the facts are controlled by the administration?

How do we know whether Gen Petraeus hasnt changed his name to Betrayus?

After all he knows what happened to the previous commanders who refused to go along with Bush and the neocrazies.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nebraska29
post Sep 10 2007, 02:43 AM
Post #12


*********
Only siths speak in absolutes.

Sponsor
November 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,712
Member No.: 1,871
Joined: November-29-03

From: York, Nebraska
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE
Is the surge (escalation) working?

How is "working" defined?

How can a Judgment be made when the facts are controlled by the administration?


The hyperlink clarifies how it is "working." From the article:

QUOTE
Average Iraqis tell Time that Baghdad feels safer; sectarian violence in the capital has been reduced, Pentagon officials say, and many Baghdad residents want the surge to continue. That's in part what the operation's architects had in mind when they sketched it out last fall.


The information isn't just from Bush, it comes from the pentagon, not to mention what regular Iraqis tell the reporters.

QUOTE
How do we know whether Gen Petraeus hasnt changed his name to Betrayus?

After all he knows what happened to the previous commanders who refused to go along with Bush and the neocrazies.


Hyperbole aside, how does calling him names prove anything? That doesn't prove anything contrary to what I've produced from TIME.






Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Contumacious
post Sep 10 2007, 03:15 AM
Post #13


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 176
Member No.: 7,930
Joined: August-24-07

From: Adjuntas, Puerto Rico
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Sep 9 2007, 09:43 PM) *
QUOTE
Is the surge (escalation) working?

How is "working" defined?

How can a Judgment be made when the facts are controlled by the administration?


The hyperlink clarifies how it is "working." From the article:



Is the surge (escalation) working?

How is "working" defined?

How can a Judgment be made when the facts are controlled by the administration?


Again, how do you know that Petraeus is not pulling a "Westmoreland"? The Time article doe not state that Time reporters conducted their own investigation.

This post has been edited by Contumacious: Sep 10 2007, 03:20 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nebraska29
post Sep 10 2007, 11:57 AM
Post #14


*********
Only siths speak in absolutes.

Sponsor
November 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,712
Member No.: 1,871
Joined: November-29-03

From: York, Nebraska
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Contumacious @ Sep 9 2007, 10:15 PM) *
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Sep 9 2007, 09:43 PM) *
QUOTE
Is the surge (escalation) working?

How is "working" defined?

How can a Judgment be made when the facts are controlled by the administration?


The hyperlink clarifies how it is "working." From the article:



Is the surge (escalation) working?

How is "working" defined?

How can a Judgment be made when the facts are controlled by the administration?


Again, how do you know that Petraeus is not pulling a "Westmoreland"? The Time article doe not state that Time reporters conducted their own investigation.


Once again, average Iraqis are telling TIME and other media outlets that things are a bit more peaceful. On top of that, they are telling the media that they want it to continue, for obvious reasons!.

Read the article, it's right in there.

QUOTE
Average Iraqis tell Time that Baghdad feels safer;


It is true that results are mixed at best. Violence in Baghdad has decreased, which is giving time to the Iraqi government to sort things out. To that end, we are succeeding. It is true that the surge has merely pushed violence to other areas. With that being said, that was the goal of the surge in the first place. Give the lawmakers some modicum of peace in order to create a stable government and military. When it comes to the Iraqis doing their part, that is a completely different story. blink.gif

From the hyperlink:

QUOTE
In a vote of confidence in the surge by US troops, the shops were reopening last week. Hareth Salah, a 24-year-old student, said he had stopped attending courses at his technical college when the surge began last month.

“One of my friends was killed by the terrorists,” he said, “but now there are a lot more Iraqi army checkpoints and I’m feeling more secure. I feel better; I can go out and do my shopping. More people have opened their stores and the markets are open longer.”


and...

QUOTE
Murderous sectarian checkpoints have melted away as the Iraqi security forces and American troops extend their grip on the capital. Abu Mohammed, a 34-year-old taxi driver, who lives in the largely Shi’ite Sha’ab district in northern Baghdad, said: “Sometimes I would stop and wait for an hour or two rather than take a chance on passing a fake checkpoint with a customer.


Once again, keep in mind that these are average people talking with the media, believe it or not, Bush is not some guy behind a curtain pulling all the strings and levers in some Oz like world. thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Sep 10 2007, 12:35 PM
Post #15


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,329
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



I think Petraus is giving his testimony today. A few days ago, he publish a letter to the Multinational forces in Iraq that seems to touch on what he intends to say. He highlights good news while acknowledging a lack of progress in certain areas.
QUOTE
Up front, my sense is that we have achieved tactical momentum and wrested the initiative from our enemies in a number of areas of Iraq. The result has been progress in the security arena, although it has, as you know, been uneven. Additionally, as you all appreciate very well, innumerable tasks remain and much hard work lies ahead. We are, in short, a long way from the goal line, but we do have the ball and we are driving down the field. [emphasis added]

* * *
Many of us had hoped this summer would be a time of tangible political progress at the national level as well. One of the justifications for the surge, after all, was that it would help create the space for Iraqi leaders to tackle the tough questions and agree on key pieces of "national reconciliation" legislation. It has not worked out as we had hoped. All participants, Iraqi and coalition alike, are dissatisfied by the halting progress on major legislative initiatives such as the oil framework law, revenue sharing, and de-ba'athification reform. At the same time, however, our appreciation of what this legislation represents for Iraqi leaders has grown. These laws are truly fundamental in nature and will help determine how Iraqis will share power and resources in the new Iraq. While much work remains to be done before these critical issues are resolved, the seriousness with which Iraqi leaders came together at their summit in late August has given hope that they are up to the task before them, even if it is clearly taking more time than we initially expected.


I do know that whatever he says, anything whatsoever favorable that might come out will simply be dismissed as Bushite speech by many (like Contumacious apparently). The man who was handed a crap pie and told to try and make it savory, can obviously do nothing right...even if some things are going right that must surely be a lie because....well, it has to be! Devoid of anything meaningful to say, resort to a schoolyard namecalling play on his last name (so clever, brings to mind 'smelly nellie' ah, the nostalgia! rolleyes.gif).

1. Is the surge working?
Hard to say, magic queball says 'not likely'. From the blogs I've read from people on the ground, some areas are markedly better. But, often the reasons are troubling. In some places attacks are down because our forces are basically work with the Mahdi Army as the Iraqi Army units are so infiltrated. That's very bad.

But sometimes the reasons are good. From Michael Totten, a journalist in Iraq right now:
QUOTE
After spending some time in and around Baghdad with the United States military I visited the city of Ramadi, the capital of Iraq’s notoriously convulsive and violent Anbar Province, and breathed an unlikely sigh of relief. Only a few months ago Ramadi was one of the most dangerous cities in the world. It was another “Fallujah,” and certainly the most dangerous place in Iraq. Today, to the astonishment of everyone – especially the United States Army and Marines – it is perhaps the safest city in all of Iraq outside of Kurdistan.

In August 2006 the Marine Corps, arguably the least defeatist institution in all of America, wrote off Ramadi as irretrievably lost. They weren’t crazy for thinking it. Abu Musab al Zarqawi’s Al Qaeda in Iraq had moved in to fight the Americans, and they were welcomed as liberators by a substantial portion of the local population.


2. Should this strategy be continued? If so, for how long?

I'd like to see us leave. I can't remember where I heard it, but something brings to mind that the surge cannot be continued past April of 2008 because there simply aren't resources available. By that time, the military will be completely tapped out and overstretched. So something has to happen and we need a clear objective for the very very nearterm future. Hopefully, Petraeus will have something to say about that today.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Sep 10 2007, 12:47 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Contumacious
post Sep 10 2007, 12:54 PM
Post #16


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 176
Member No.: 7,930
Joined: August-24-07

From: Adjuntas, Puerto Rico
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Sep 10 2007, 06:57 AM) *
QUOTE(Contumacious @ Sep 9 2007, 10:15 PM) *
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Sep 9 2007, 09:43 PM) *
QUOTE
Is the surge (escalation) working?

How is "working" defined?

How can a Judgment be made when the facts are controlled by the administration?


The hyperlink clarifies how it is "working." From the article:



Is the surge (escalation) working?

How is "working" defined?

How can a Judgment be made when the facts are controlled by the administration?


Again, how do you know that Petraeus is not pulling a "Westmoreland"? The Time article doe not state that Time reporters conducted their own investigation.


Once again, average Iraqis are telling TIME and other media outlets that things are a bit more peaceful. On top of that, they are telling the media that they want it to continue, for obvious reasons!.

Read the article, it's right in there.



Is the surge working?


Since it is impossible to get FACTS from the neocrazies or Gen Betrayus lets see what the independent media is saying:

David Petraeus: General Surge

"There has been some improvement in security in central Baghdad but it is still an extraordinarily dangerous place. A true measure of security or lack of it is that the number of Iraqis fleeing their homes has risen from 50,000 to 60,000 a month. None are returning to where they once lived. Baghdad has largely become a Shia city and sectarian killings may be down because in many areas there is no longer anybody from the other community to kill. Despite the supposed new emphasis on the safety of ordinary Iraqis, the US had increased its use of air power in the close-packed slums of Baghdad. The US military routinely claims that all the dead are insurgents even when the Iraqi police and doctors assert that they are seeing the bodies of women and children.

The high reputation of Petraeus in the US is a little difficult to explain. He is certainly an able man but his achievements in Iraq since 2003 have been limited, though his defenders might argue that he is involved in a war which the US could never have won because outside Kurdistan it has no reliable allies. "The surge" is feared by the Shia-Kurdish government as a lurch towards the Sunni, the same tactic that Petraeus pursued in Mosul with disastrous effect."


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Sep 10 2007, 05:11 PM
Post #17


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,415
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Sep 9 2007, 10:07 AM) *
General Petraeus is set to report the status of the Surge in Iraq this week. It is anticipated he will give a mixed - yet positive report on the progress of the surge and ask for more time. Some are already doubting it's effectiveness. September was another "Friedman Unit" (New York Times reporter Tom Friedman is always asking for another 6 months) and the "magic" date to determine the course of action needed in Iraq.

Simple questions for debate:

1. Is the surge working?
2. Should this strategy be continued? If so, for how long?

*Note: The point of the other thread "Plan or Ploy" was meant to address whether the surge was a real strategy for victory as opposed to a political stunt. Since the other thread is too unwieldy, please discuss the surge's effectiveness here.

Yes to some extent. It seems to be working from the ground up which in and of itself is a good thing – but at some point the political process has to move forward on the national level. This was one of the purposes of the Surge – to give some breathing room to the central government.

Now they need to take advantage of the gains and reach agreements that will allow Iraq to unify as a country rather than as sectarian subsets.



QUOTE
2. Should this strategy be continued? If so, for how long?


Yes. Continue until a political reconciliation is reached and the Iraqi Army can defend the country. Hopefully this can be accomplished by next fall.

IMO we will still have 100K troops in Iraq when Bush leaves office. Hopefully they will then be in a support role only.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Trouble
post Sep 10 2007, 08:54 PM
Post #18


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 740
Member No.: 1,142
Joined: September-6-03

From: Regina, Sk. Canada
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: None



Since we've been over this I think the best thing to do is review as much of the evidence as we can and weigh the pros and cons.

1. Is the surge working?
I gotta admit, working can mean a lot of different things.
The short answer, no though I'm sure the sunshine of Anbar will be shovelled directly for public consumption on the 11th.

The GAO report indicates that many of the goals (benchmarks sounds goofy) were not met.

The Jones CSIS report is more forgiving, but falsely attributes the success of Anbar province to cooperation while failing to acknowledge the nationalist forces. IE they pat themselves a little too readily on the back. At least the document mentions the large footprint of the occupation and suggests decreasing it.

What is interesting is the NIE report contradicts much of the narrative Bush has been spoon feeding us in regards to Iranian munitions.
The NIE report asserts much of the resistance is Sunni based, not Shia derived which makes Mr. Bush's claims of Quds-force EFP claims absurd and facetious. It also highlights a point which should be discussed more extensively here. The schism between nationalist and separtist Shias which the Sadr army falls into.

All three together paint a rather bleak picture. I'll let people draw their own conclusions from there.

2. Should this strategy be continued? If so, for how long?

At this point withdrawl will not be quick or easy. Then again staying will definitely not assuage the situation. Just be cognizant that the longer the stay the greater the chance Cheney will be able to widen the war.

This post has been edited by Trouble: Sep 10 2007, 11:34 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BaphometsAdvocat...
post Sep 10 2007, 09:11 PM
Post #19


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,710
Member No.: 5,535
Joined: October-11-05

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Contumacious @ Sep 10 2007, 08:54 AM) *
Since it is impossible to get FACTS from the neocrazies or Gen Betrayus

This is not FreeRepublic.com. This is not DemocraticUnderground.com This is a place where grownups debate civilly and with a modicum of attention things like grammar and spelling. As general rule we tend to stay away from phrases like neocrazies, pinkos, and unimaginative word play like Betrayus. Sure, sometimes we all "go to the zoo" and some of us (myself included) have a tougher time than others staying in The Rules. Do try and join us in civil, mature debate.

This post has been edited by BaphometsAdvocate: Sep 10 2007, 09:12 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gordo
post Sep 11 2007, 05:44 AM
Post #20


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 864
Member No.: 6,220
Joined: June-28-06

Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Sep 10 2007, 09:11 PM) *
QUOTE(Contumacious @ Sep 10 2007, 08:54 AM) *
Since it is impossible to get FACTS from the neocrazies or Gen Betrayus

This is not FreeRepublic.com. This is not DemocraticUnderground.com This is a place where grownups debate civilly and with a modicum of attention things like grammar and spelling. As general rule we tend to stay away from phrases like neocrazies, pinkos, and unimaginative word play like Betrayus. Sure, sometimes we all "go to the zoo" and some of us (myself included) have a tougher time than others staying in The Rules. Do try and join us in civil, mature debate.



Well its difficult at times for me to do this but I will try. Ok, lets start with my points here. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, to date we still cant make any connection to 9-11 and Iraq, none at all. The GWOT was a reaction to the event that was 9-11, in which we promptly invaded Afghanistan to counter and or destroy the people actually responsible for 9-11. Someone this equates into needing to expand the GWOT into Iraq. Now the reasons giving are many and in many ways the reasons giving make no sense and are even contradictory in all reality. For instance, we had intelligence that was bullet proof that we could not share at the U.N, to save from this war being an illegal invasion. So we went in with a coalition of the willing, in which many were bought and paid for and have sense become a coalition of the very few and leaving. This bullet proof information turned out to be false, in which you could say anything you want at that point, much like saying the WMD is north, west, south or east of Baghdad. SO then we have to install democracy because it will end terrorism, which on its own makes absolutely no sense and has no proof to back it up, Muslims, Persians and Arabs come to America, can come to America, and or Europe first of all. Ok, so its democracy as the reason to invade Iraq now, or stay there. Well, how long will that be, the current answer is forever stay the course, for a democratic Iraq, which I would think if wanted would already exist, but that’s beside the point right? Then the next idea is it will preoccupy terrorists, so one is the think that all the terrorists then must currently be in Iraq, or else that’s a failure there, the other idea is that its a good thing to invade a nation for an indefinite amount of time killing untold amounts of civilians in the process for however long because obviously, all of the worlds terrorists are now in Iraq.

Other points are that this war subtracted in large from killing AQ and the Taliban, which are still at large, and well, don’t happen to be in Iraq. The other issue is how its fragmented the global community over an issue that needs unification to actually be combated, being terrorism is something of an unconventional, live all over the world kind of threat. The other is how Iraq and the middle east in large is reacting to the occupation of Iraq by our forces in which is not helping at all unless you consider fanning the flames of terrorism to be a plus, in ending terrorism.

Lastly, when was the last time that our dear president actually came out and said anything of substance that was not some piece of emotional laden spin that means absolutely nothing? Such does not happen, for the most part our dear leader spends his time finding ways to make the government be nothing more then his idea of how everything should be, and clearly cares not for others opinions, which is a great way to run a democracy I must say.

So in short, yes, I am tired of it. What really gets to me is when democrats, elected by the people in large to counter obviously the basic idiocy of bush if not the insane madness of his policies basically fold on themselves and in some pseudo format even extend if not accept such policies really, much like saying bush had a plan for Iraq, what a joke. It leaves me to think that politics really is a stunt, if not a special effect really, some guise perpetrated by people that will vote along with each other for pay raises, and really nothing more. Like most of these threads something becomes factually based on the mouthpiece it comes from, not from any detailed study and of course not from anything empirical in any regards. Iraq has been four years plus of the same, and well, that’s the only thing true about it. The surge was more money and more people and the same result. Don’t expect bush to say this though of course, its politically unsound even if its true, and that’s pure honesty and politics for you. I can say of course if we leave Iraq that terrorism will come to rule the world, and if I say it enough it surely is true, I mean just look what leaving Vietnam created, global domination by the communists.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

33 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: August 20th, 2018 - 04:43 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.