You are a fool. The admin have had a thousand chances, and have ruined and squandered every single one all the while telling us that things were going well. You can keep swallowing the same old crap that has been wrong every time before, but smarter consumers won't. This General is about giving the administration another chance. They have gotten rid of every other military commander who told them something they didn't want to hear. Now they've got one that tells them what they like. Giving him a chance is giving the administration a chance. The surge isn't a new strategy. It's an old one that has already been tried in this war, and failed every time.
This is exactly what I am talking about where you are equating the military with the administration. While the administration has failed, I do believe we need to see what the impact this surge has had before rushing to any decision. I am not listening to Bush, but rather other people, including some democrats, who are saying there's some positive momentum. Now, I want to see if the momentum builds or if it flounders. If it builds, I'll continue to support remaining in Iraq, and if it fizzles, then we should leave. I'm sorry you see that as foolish, but I see your strategy of just keeping a closed mind and declaring defeat a bit dogmatic and a play on party politics. Just because I'm now taking a wait and see approach, you're upset and call me a fool. Well buddy, let me tell you something. Regardless of what you say, I'm going to hold judgement until I get more information on what's going on. Just because Iraq has gone badly thus far and that we went in for the wrong reasons doesn't mean that Iraq is not important. It's extremely important. And at the very least, we should try to deliver a blow to Al Qaeda in Iraq before we leave so it doesn't turn into the terrorist haven Afganistan and Pakistan have become.
I posted it above. One was a muslim american congress man, the other was a state legislator from California.
I can only hope NewYorker's attempts to paint acknowledgement of defeat and pursuit of an exit strategy as defeatist and partisan are just further examples of his weird fetish for pestering the board with devil's advocacy. It is not Democrats or liberals who are calling for an end to this war. It is America. And England. And Iraq. And the vast majority of the rest of the world. More than four years into a war that has yielded nothing but needless death and endless evidence of incompetence and wrongheaded policy on the part of the administration and the military leaders it insists on installing (removing, ALWAYS, any that acknowledge the reality of the situation there while deflecting blame by saying they're listening to the generals - oh lord, that's a good one), patience and "giving it time to work" is not sober or levelheaded. It is insane. It has had time to work. It has had more time than any modern war to work. It's not working. And the fact that there were less deaths in July than in May (as there have been EVERY year of this war) is hardly evidence to the contrary -- especially when there have been more deaths this July than any other. I would also appreciate a link showing which Democrats believe the war is working and worth continuing. But I expect it will be a link to NewYorker's profile and that he will pose now as a Democrat and maybe even an Iraqi to make his point. It wouldn't be the first time.
ONE congressman among more than 200 Democrats in the House??? And one state legislator among thousands of Democrat state legislators??? And that proves there's not consensus?????????!!!!!!! You are a moron.
Again, for those who think that only repubs are seeing optimism: Muslim-American Congressman Keith Ellison of Minnesota, hardly a Bush buddy, recently returned from Iraq on a trip organized by California Democrat Jerry McNerney. Ellison said he saw signs of success, and gave credit to Petraeus' strategy: "What they're doing is respecting people, giving the people some control over their own lives." Likewise, McNerney, who has supported troop withdrawal, said post-trip he now thinks in terms of being "flexible" on the issue. That's progress -- military and political. This war can be won. It just takes the right strategy and enough will to carry it out. Maybe we can muster both after all. http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds...01-18565289.htm
In other words, consensus = 100%. 99.5% of Democrats in the House and 100% of Democrats in the Senate is not a consensus. Thanks for the lesson, NewYorker.
I called you a fool, because you have been lied to for 4 years, and are still willing to listen to more of it. I don't know if you watched the report from the guy saying that basically the surge has some positive results because they are cutting deals Suni militias that are the same ones that are the insurgents fighting against the current govt. of Iraq. So it is breeding instability. Furthermore even one of the authors from the OP said that politics trumps military, and we can see that politically what gives the surge small successes damages the politics, and that the political situation is still getting worse. I gave all the military commanders chances, and they all eventually said it wasn't working. They were all removed and Bush put in someone who would say what Bush wanted him to say. I would be more than happy for things to work in Iraq, and I am willing to listen to any credible evidence that shows that it is. I haven't seen that. You haven't shown it. Basso hasn't shown it. The surge isn't anything new that we have to wait and see how it works out. We've seen how the other nearly identical surges have worked out when the administration tried them in the past. Anyone who has seen how this administration works, and the lines they feed about Iraq but is still willing to see if it turns around and continue listening to their BS is being foolish. As far as delivering a blow to Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the biggest blow we could deliver to them would be to leave. It wouldn't become another Afghanistan with terror training camps, because nobody's plan for withdrawing just leaves Iraq with no security force at all. They all include working with different allies and nations to provide a stabilizing security force, and keep the U.S. within striking distance should they be needed.
Seeing signs of success and being flexible isn't exactly an approval of the administration's actions.... or, I guess Congressman Keith Ellison hasn't updated his web page: I came to Congress for one resounding reason: support our troops by ending the war and bringing them home. http://ellison.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=32 But Congressman McNerney has:
But this isn't about the administration really. It's not Bush I'm listening to but to others. So we'll see what happens. I see some momentum for the first time in a long time. Change starts with small things, so have to look at how a trend forms. Let's see what the next month brings and then decide. It's not about the admin, it's just about seeing what happens in the next 6 weeks.
Bush just found others to say what he wants. The independent others and even not so independent others were all replaced when they said something Bush didn't like.
When there is significant meaningful progress I doubt it will get under others skin. I think what's more important is that you are afraid of Pakistan to the point where you would let the architects of 9/11 roam free there and operate terrorist training camps.
Saying you are putting party politics above the country interests is accusing someone of treason since its saying that they are willing to betray the country for what is good for the party. That's a very tough charge and one that I would think deserves more substatiation. I don't whether you are directing this to me or in general but I haven't advocated an immediate withdrawl and practically have said that I don't see a withdraw happening until Bush leaves office. For that matter in this very thread I've said I'm willing to take the original article at face value. What I have said is the record of this war where short term limited successes have been trumpeted as signs of overall progress only to not pan out means that such things should be looked at skeptically. I don't find it despicable that you have an open mind but I do believe it is a very serious charge to level that someone is essentially engaging in treason. I think you can have an open mind without accusing someone else of putting their party's interest above the country's. In fact that would imply not having an open mind.
What I find odd is that you would suddenly change your mind after calling the war failed a few days ago based on a couple of articles especially where one of them is an op-ed and not a new piece. You yourself have argued the importance of skepticism yet you have suddenly abandoned it even when the record shows that it is very warranted on this subject. I can appreciate having an open mind and would even agree with you that we should assess the evidence. That said your quick turnaround though strikes me as either being very gullible or else this is just another part of your internet debate game.
From what I read, Gen. Patreaus is laying out new initiatives and tactics... It's not really the "same ole" I am sure.
First off there is no article at your link and since Ellison is my Congressman I doubt that he is now supporting the surge. Since I haven't read the article and haven't seen his comments cited in local news my guess is that while he gave Petraeus some credit for important changes his opinion is still that the war must be ended and troops brought home now. Nothing I have heard from him indicates he's changed that position and if he had it would be all over the local news as he was elected as a vocal war opponent.
