The surge has failed. It isn't that the troops haven't provided more security in Iraq where they were deployed. They have. The troops haven't failed, and have done an amazing job in a very difficult situation. I think many on the left would have to admit that the mission the troops carried out seems to have been more successful in curbing violence than many including myself thought was possible. It's too bad that the surge was such a failure. The failure comes in strategy. A strategy from Our CnC, Bush, and touted highly by McCain. The reason why it has failed is because it takes away troops from the area where Al-Qaeda and those that attacked our nation our currently making their base of operations. It isn't just a liberal like me or Obama who believes this. It is the chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The man is the top Military officer in the nation. I didn't include more of the article because this kind of thing has been discussed before. Many others have said that by stretching our military too thing in a place that wasn't a threat like Iraq we have taken our eye off of the ball in a place where the real threat has been located all along. This isn't a case of liberals not wanting to win, but the exact opposite. They want to win the real competition(analogy = Superbowl) and not the "Bud-Bowl" that is Iraq. We've seen Al-Qaeda grow back to the same strength they were at on 9/11. We've also seen how The Taliban has had a huge resurgence and we are losing ground in the real battlefront of the war on terror. It's ashame.
Once again liberals seeking to supress the good news that the surge is working. The liberals know they can't compete with McCain on national security. Especially not with Obama who wants to cut and run in Iraq (or does he, this week?)
Not to play Trader Jorge or bigtexxx, but are you suggesting we shouldn't have done the surge and left Iraq even more of a mess? Beacuse at the time of the surge, Afghanistan had cooled down somewhat, and Iraq was where the help was needed. You can make the argument that was imprudent to not see future challenges in Afghanistan, but I think you are wrong in the way your current argument reads. There was a need for the surge in Iraq.
Isn't this more a failure of the overrall strategy rather than the surge? The surge itself seems to be working.
The last 12 months has been the most positive in Iraq - I wouldn't call that a failure. Hopefully the situation has stabalized enough and we can take troops from iraq and move them to afganistan - this is the plan I hear now. I don't think many people are trying to spin that the surge was a failure. Something has been working in Iraq finally. I think Patreus deserves a lot of credit.
You know, perhaps the constant browbeating of the military and our leaders since this all started has hurt recruiting, you think? Nooooo, of course not. After all, you did say something nice about the troops, so you have absolved yourself and all your brethren from any and all culpability in a troop shortage. ..while throwing up a headline loudly proclaiming 'failure' ... with outfits like code pink parading in front of recruiting stations, no-life losers constantly picketing efforts to recruit all across the country, taxpayer-funded universities refusing recruiter access (in violation of the law now less), where is the big surprise? The left has tried for years to sabotage the war by starving the military of recruits. You must be happy, good for you. Oh, unless you thought that the the article indicated that the 'failure' it mentioned was one of leadership or strategy, instead of the results of a prolonged sabotage effort here at home.. ..in which case, no, you're wrong. The Surge has been a brilliant success militarily and strategically. The only 'failure' is in a determination to fight a 'zero-collateral-loss' war, which gives the advantage to those enemies who not only don't care about collateral loss of life, but in fact encourage it, while at the same time refusing to take steps to ensure the safety and rights of those who may want to join the military.
I agree with this. If we were going to stay in Iraq, the surge was the best way to do it. You can say that the whole War in Iraq diverted resources from the real war on Terror, and I wouldn't disagree. But the surge is achieving its objectives and has mostly been a success. General Petraeus and the troops have done a great job in Iraq over the past bit. A lot of the new violence in Afghanistan is being started by the US fighting battles that we weren't fighting for whatever reason until recently.
Not to hijack, but this is my proverbial stumbling block. Why the **** should I care about Iraq? Why is my tax money being wasted there? Nobody has yet to give me a good answer. Ever.
You are living in denial if you think that the surge has failed. Obviously it has dramatically improved our situation in Iraq and been a huge success. That debate has long since passed. Again, I question the motives of those who want to convince others that the surge has not been a success. Give our troops more credit for their work.
The Chairmen of the Join Chief of Staffs and the highest ranking military figure in the nation is a liberal trying supress good news? Way to support the troops bigtexxx.
Blade did not even post the damning part of this piece, this is from the Chairmain of The Joint Chiefs of Staff, but the talking head internet warriors come in and immediately attack the source who was quoting the ultimate source Navy Adm. Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said insurgent Taliban and extremist forces in Afghanistan have become "a very complex problem," one that is tied to the extensive drug trade, a faltering economy and the porous border with Pakistan. Violence in Afghanistan has increased markedly over recent weeks, with June the deadliest month for U.S. troops since the war began in 2001. "I don't have troops I can reach for, brigades I can reach, to send into Afghanistan until I have a reduced requirement in Iraq," Mullen told reporters at the Pentagon. "Afghanistan has been and remains an economy-of-force campaign, which by definition means we need more forces there."
why does the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff hate our troops and america? another liberal trying to undermine the success of our great nation with negative news.
Your argument was far from TJ or bigtexxx, because it was a legitimate point to bring up. I disagree that Afghanistan was cooled down when we started the surge. There have been calls for a long time prior to the surge that we needed more troops there from both those in the U.S. and those with NATO. As far as Iraq needing help it did need help. The help it needed wasn't really the surge though. Remember the goal of the surge was political stability. The extra security wasn't the end goal of the surge according to Bush. The largest party of Sunni's still isn't back in the govt. after their earlier withdrawl, and talks to bring them back in were recently canceled. There still is no oil sharing revenue plan agreed upon, and both of these things are easily as big of an obstacle to political stability as the security problems.
While it has been a partial success in Iraq(and definitely only partial success) it has been a failure in the larger more important War on Terror. For the surge to be a success there would be political stability in Iraq. There isn't. That was the stated goal of the surge. Great that we are moving troops to Afghanistan, it's just too bad that all those people had to die because we didn't do it sooner.
WMDs. Or UN resolution violatiaons. Or genocide. Or terrorism. Or the Garden of Eden. That's it. We needed to secure the Garden of Eden. Really, I'm with you.
No, you are wrong. IT isn't the brow beating of liberals or the the press that has driven down recruiting. It is the fact that people are reluctant to join while it is being so poorly mismanaged, and troops like those in Afghanistan aren't being given the support they need because they are being diverted to the distraction that is Iraq. That strategy has hurt recruiting far more than anything I, the media, or any liberal has said. Beside the fact the nation's top military officer didn't say it was the brow beating and lack of recruiting that was hurting our efforts in Afghanistan. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is the one that said it was the surge and troop level in Iraq that kept him from doing what needs to be done in Afghanistan. So if you have an argument with that, your argument is with him.
1. The stated goal of the surge was to have political stability in Iraq. We don't. 2. I wasn't even talking about whether or not it succeeded in Iraq. I was talking about whether or not it was a success in the War on Terror.
