Iraq surge a failure

[Paddy]

gollee Sgt Carter, suprise, suprise.

Iraq surge a failure, top Democrats tell Bush     

Jun 13 04:38 PM US/Eastern
   

      Top US congressional Democrats bluntly told President George W. Bush Wednesday that his Iraq troop "surge" policy was a failure.

Senate Majority leader Harry Reid and House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi challenged the president over Iraq by sending him a letter, ahead of a White House meeting later on Wednesday.

"As many had forseen, the escalation has failed to produce the intended results," the two leaders wrote.

"The increase in US forces has had little impact in curbing the violence or fostering political reconciliation.

"It has not enhanced Americas national security. The unsettling reality is that instances of violence against Iraqis remain high and attacks on US forces have increased.

"In fact, the last two months of the war were the deadliest to date for US troops.

The letter appeared to preview a fresh showdown over Iraq between anti-war Democrats and the president, just a few weeks after Bush forced his foes to strip troop withdrawal timelines from a 100 billion dollar emergency war budget.

It also came a few days after the US military mourned its 3,500th soldier killed in action in Iraq.

Pelosi and Reid told Bush in the letter that they planned to send him new legislation to "limit the US mission in Iraq, begin the phased redeployment of US forces, and bring the war to a responsible end."

On Tuesday, Reid said that Senate Democrats would attach troop withdrawal deadlines to a Defense Department Authorization bill, due to be debated within weeks.

The next critical point in the showdown between Bush and Congress over Iraq is expected in September, when US commander in Iraq David Petraeus is due to report on progress in the strategy to "surge" up to 30,000 more US troops into the war-ravaged nation.

Even senior Republicans have said they expected the president will have little choice but to make adjustments in the Iraq strategy, once the report is made public.

Let's quit squandering lives and money in this endless black hole cesspool.   You screwed the pooch, George, step up and admit it.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070613203802.7yla5iav&show_article=1

[The Rabbi]

They were calling it a failure during the appointment of Gen. Petraeus.  They were calling it a quagmire as the troops were crossing the lines.
The Democrats have been waiving the surrender flag for so long they wouldn't know what victory looked like if it bit them in the butt.

[Paddy]

they wouldn't know what victory looked like if it bit them in the butt.

So, just what does victory in Iraq look like?

[thebaldguy]

How I thought victory in Iraq would look:

I thought soldiers would be welcome in the streets like in the liberation of Paris! You know, people cheering and clapping and crying tears of joy for the liberators! Saddam's evil government is gone! A new, stable democratic government installed to solve the countries' problems and issues. Soldiers home in less than a year. Maybe even Iraq becoming a tourist destination to see the "Cradle of Civilization". Oh, and an endless crude oil supply with a friendly government selling us cheap oil.

That is what my idea of victory in Iraq looks like. My girlfriend's brother leaves for Iraq soon for a second tour with the National Guard. I almost can't believe he's been called up a second time.

I guess we still don't have that victory yet.

[Perd Hapley]

I thought soldiers would be welcome in the streets like in the liberation of Paris! You know, people cheering and clapping and crying tears of joy for the liberators! Saddam's evil government is gone!

Well, it wasn't quite Paris, but all of that did happen.  Are you ignorant of this, or just in denial?

[thebaldguy]

I thought soldiers would be welcome in the streets like in the liberation of Paris! You know, people cheering and clapping and crying tears of joy for the liberators! Saddam's evil government is gone!

Well, it wasn't quite Paris, but all of that did happen.  Are you ignorant of this, or just in denial?

I'm not in denial. I guess the cheering in the streets finally stopped though. Must have missed that. I think the cheering has been replaced with "insurgents" shooting at US soldiers. I think the other stuff hasn't happened yet. And fistful, I'm not so sure it's gonna happen either!

[wmenorr67]

The troop surge is working.  The press and the naysayers just don't want the general public to know the truth.  Yes we have lost 3500+ troops since we have been here.  And yes there were over 100 lost in the month of May.  However everyone wants to compare this to Veitnam.  Well during Veitnam there were several times where we lost over 100 in just the matter of hours.

[brimic]

If you blindly swallow the lies of the 4th estate then its easy to convince you that Iraq is a failure. I get a completely different picture from people that have actually been there.

The democratic (sic) party is glad and willing to trade soldiers lives for votes.

[Perd Hapley]

Riley found a story that's critical of our Iraq policy!   

In fact, the last two months of the war were the deadliest to date for US troops.

Well, if we have more troops there... 
Friendly body count tells us little of the success of the surge.  How many of the enemy were killed?  Were our boys killed because they are fighting more or fighting harder, finding more targets to attack and what-not? 

[wmenorr67]

Friendly body count tells us little of the success of the surge.  How many of the enemy were killed?  Were our boys killed because they are fighting more or fighting harder, finding more targets to attack and what-not? 

Great assessment Fistful.  Unknown.  Yes, yes and not able to tell you.

One thing I can say because it was reported in the news is that about a week ago we were able to catch a couple of bad guys getting ready to launch 12 rockets at the IZ in the act.  They were only able to get two into the air before they were desposed of.  The other 10 rockets were destroyed after a couple of well placed rounds from an Apache.

We are making headway overhere, but major strides are not going to happen overnight.  IMHO by the end of the year, if the media and politicians let the truth be told, everyone should see improvements in the situation overhere.

[cosine]

We are making headway overhere, but major strides are not going to happen overnight.  IMHO by the end of the year, if the media and politicians let the truth be told, everyone should see improvements in the situation overhere.

Good to hear.

I don't, however, expect the media to let it be made well known.

[Leatherneck]

Of course not. The liberals and their lapdog media have a vested interest in causing Bush's war to fail. They've drunk so much koolaid they're incapable of rational thought.

TC

[roo_ster]

I see one way in which Iraq is like Vietnam:
The Democrats and various lefty types are letting slip their false-face of love of country and respect for our armed forces.  We see the weasels for who they are as they castigate those who do the heavy lifting for Western Civilization.

[K Frame]

The Democrats would be screeching failure no matter what the result of the surge.

No car bombings, no American deaths, no Iraqi deaths?

Why, the surge is a HUGE failure because the insurgents are just marshalling their forces for a monumental attack.

[ConfuseUs]

I would say the the surge is a failure, but not in the military sense. THe public does not want an extended military involvement in Iraq, and never did. The public was satisfied with getting rid of Saddam.

The problem is that getting rid of Saddam (a huge military victory in every sense of the word) has been spoiled by the ongoing grind of holding the Iraqis back from butchering each other.

Does

"...I have heard of military operations which were clumsy but swift, but I have never heard of one that was skillful and lasted for a long time. It is never beneficial to a nation to have a military operation continue for a long time." 
Sun Tzu

ring true or what?

[K Frame]

Sun Sue needs to define "long time."

What constituted a long time in his time?

Would it bear any resemblence to what is considered to be a "long time" today given that most people these days seem to have the attention spans of a dead flounder?

[Paddy]

Well, WWII lasted from what, Sept 1939 (Germany invaded Poland) to August 1945 (Hiroshima & Nagasaki).  That's six years.  WWII also involved some 100 million military personnel and saw some 60 million casualties.  It was a real war, however, (as in declared by Congress)  and not this limited engagement let's play whackamole toesies pattycake BS.

Just how long do you think this so-called 'war' should last?  Is there some time frame limit or do you just think we should continue to throw lives and money into it for as long as GWB remains president?

[RevDisk]

We are making headway overhere, but major strides are not going to happen overnight.  IMHO by the end of the year, if the media and politicians let the truth be told, everyone should see improvements in the situation overhere.

I'll believe it when the ethnic tension eases, not a moment before.  Come to think of it, tack on the need for the ISF to stand on their own feet.  IPS/NP are theoretically a bit further along, but ethnic issues are still entrenched.

We both know the second we leave, Kurdistan will become an issue.  They are already quasi independent and rapidly becoming (comparatively) quite prosperous.  I'm well aware of what the intel reports currently read.  Kurdish forces are making excellent headway in preparing for an eventual war against the Iraqi govt should they try to stop Kurdish independence.  Personally, I don't think they'd occupy further south than Diyala, Kirkuk, and Ninawa.  They'd probably be willing to concede parts of those parezge even if they did occupy them.   

Improvements != stability

[K Frame]

Well, WWII lasted from what, Sept 1939 (Germany invaded Poland) to August 1945 (Hiroshima & Nagasaki).  That's six years.  WWII also involved some 100 million military personnel and saw some 60 million casualties.  It was a real war, however, (as in declared by Congress)  and not this limited engagement let's play whackamole toesies pattycake BS.

Just how long do you think this so-called 'war' should last?  Is there some time frame limit or do you just think we should continue to throw lives and money into it for as long as GWB remains president?

Well, how long did the Democrats keep Vietnam going?

Given the avowed aims of these people, I think we should just get it over with and surrender now. It's obvious that far too few people have the testicles to do anything difficult or important anymore.

"There are risks and costs to a program of action. But they are far less than the long-range risks and costs of comfortable inaction."

Sorry, JFK, people just don't comprehend that anymore.

I wasn't a big fan of going into Iraq. TFL is rife with threads of me voicing my objections. I think it was a big mistake.

But I know it would be an even HUGER mistake to simply do what the Democrats want to do -- leave a puddle of yellow water on the ground as we flee in terror.

What's the solution to the insurgency in Iraq? Deal with it the same way that the British dealt with the communist insurgency in Malaya in the 1950s. That took 12 years to quell, but it was crushed.

The only problem with that is that the Pussycrats... er... Democrats don't have the stones for that. It would immediately be moaning and lamenting about rights and how the mad, bearded turban-clad suicide bomber is really a tender, gentle, misunderstood soul.

[Ned Hamford]

Oh No, Mike Irwin's faith in the Democrat Alpha Male!

[Perd Hapley]

Sun Sue needs to define "long time."

What constituted a long time in his time?

Would it bear any resemblence to what is considered to be a "long time" today given that most people these days seem to have the attention spans of a dead flounder?

Well, WWII lasted...six years. 

Which is a pretty short war.  The question was, how long was a long campaign in Sun Tzu's context?  I don't know.  But I do know that England and France fought something called The Hundred Years War.  The Papists and Protestants fought something called The Thirty Years War. 

[roo_ster]

fistful nails it.  Existential wars are measured in decades, just for starters.

Heck, the West has been at odds with militant Islam for nigh on 1400 years. 

BTW, the Democrat alpha male is a cross-dresser, from the pics I've seen of that Pelosi fellow. 

[ConfuseUs]

Which is a pretty short war.  The question was, how long was a long campaign in Sun Tzu's context?  I don't know.  But I do know that England and France fought something called The Hundred Years War.  The Papists and Protestants fought something called The Thirty Years War.

Actually, given the sheer destructive power unleashed in WWII, that was a pretty long war. Every participant except the U.S. was devastated by it. It may have been short in duration by the standards of previous European conflicts, but the amount of Europe and Europeans destroyed by it was unprecedented.

Since the Iraq war has been going on for 4 years now with no real progress made towards a stable, peaceful, democratic, undivided Iraq, then we will be fighting it until we get tired of it, or until pigs sprout wings. We are already experiencing the negatives associated with long military operations: our money is declining in value. Most of that is related to nervousness around the world about a currency backed by an oil dependent economy run by a government fighting a war in a major oil producing region.

[Phantom Warrior]

RevDisk hit the nail on the head.  The problem in Iraq is not, strictly speaking, al-Qaida or Iranian influence.  Though those are problems.  The biggest issue in Iraq is the hatred between the Shia and Sunni factions.  These people HATE each other.  They don't want to work together or live together.

We are in the middle of something that is at very least headed towards a civil war.  If not already there.  We are trying to suppress the fighting between Shia and Sunni and we are getting hit by both sides.  And, as was also pointed out, the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) are not doing their job.  If we leave they MIGHT step up and shoulder the responsibility for the security of Iraq.  But as long as we are out there doing their job for them, there is no need to.

Iraq is like a problem child right now.  But at some point, you have to let that problem child sink or swim on their own merits.  We destroyed Sadaam's army, captured him, established a government, trained up the ISF, and have given this country billions of dollars of aid.  What more do we need to do?

I think ultimately the solution to Iraq will involve homogenizing the populace.  Whether that means the Sunnis getting pushed out or Iraq being broken up into Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish partitions, I don't know.  But, like RevDisk pointed out, "Kurdistan" is doing very well.  They have a functioning, stable government and a productive society.  Because Kurdistan is made up of Kurds, without the tensions between Shia and Sunni to tear it apart.  A good example of partitioning would be the breakup of Yugoslavia into Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, etc.  Which allowed these hostile factions to be broken up into smaller, homogeneous countries were like people can live peacefully.

But keeping one third of all Army Brigade Combat Teams (that's active and reserve) in Iraq at any given time is not the answer.  And it's doing no good.

[griz]

If you blindly swallow the lies of the 4th estate then its easy to convince you that Iraq is a failure. I get a completely different picture from people that have actually been there.

An honest question:  What is the truth that's not getting out?  I've talked to a handful of Iraq II vets, and they are typically positive about the US being there.  But even the people who have been there don't seem to see a real solution to stopping the factions in that country from wanting to kill each other.  Is there better overall news that the media isn't telling?