Exactly. The current plan depends on the Iraqis suddently figuring out how to work together, make progress, and compromise. Even if Petraeus is 100% successful, without loss of a single American life, failure on the part of the Iraqis = failure of the surge. BTW, basso, thanks for inverting and parroting arguments. I guess they really hit a note with you.
Political pooh-flinging aside, the real issue here is everyone's definition of "working" (just like the question before was everyone's definition of "winning"). If "working" to you means any improvement in security, then you must admit that the surge has "worked." The additional troops in Iraq has had a positive impact on the state of Iraq. But the questions remain: how much impact? And at what cost? My definition of the surge "working" is that it had the desired affect intended, which I don't think it has. I think the generals and the administration expected the surge to be sort of a quick fix that would improve things dramatically, and that has not happened. This isn't because of American military incompetence (far from it), but rather a miscalculation of the weakness and ineptness of the Iraqi government and military, which the administration (for whatever reason) had reason to believe would be ready enough to take charge that American troops could be withdrawn back to pre-surge levels by September of this year.
basso, it isn't about an impulse or desire to discredit and downplay something that might be positive. It is about people who have lost their credibility by crying wolf over and over about how great things were going, when in reality they weren't going well. Remember the IRaqi information minister? There was a reason why people laughed at him, and didn't believe him. It was because he said things that weren't credible. This administration, the op-ed writers in your article, etc. have all done the same thing. Even still people would be willing to believe that we were winning upon seeing some real positive steps, and it was clearly defined for everyone what winning actually was.
Evidence IT is WORKING... or not... US Deaths: July 2007: 77 July 2006: 46 July 2005: 58 July 2004: 58 July 2003: 49 655,000: Iraqi deaths a Johns-Hopkins study attributed to the war nine months ago. 2,770: Iraqi civilians killed in May 2007, according to government reports. (Actual figure unknown because the Iraqi government refuses to share its data with outside agencies that could verify totals.) 1.9 million: Estimated Iraqis displaced within the country. 2.35 million: Estimated Iraqi exiles outside the country in January 2007. 18,000: Iraqi doctors who have fled the country since March 2003. ???: Iraqis orphaned by the war – no reliable statistics. 25%: Iraqi children who are malnourished (May 2006). 130,000: U.S. troops taking part in the invasion at Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s insistence. 500,000: U.S. troops estimated to be necessary by generals who put together a prewar contingency plan. $60-$95 billion: Total cost of Iraq war and aftermath calculated by Paul Wolfowitz in February 2003. $600 billion: Money Congress has allocated for direct costs of the war and occupation so far. $750 billion: Total the Cheney-Bush Administration has sought for keeping the occupation going through September 2008. $140,000: Estimated cost per minute of the war and occupation in 2007. $2 trillion: Total direct and indirect costs of war and occupation (through 2010) calculated by Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Blimes in January 2006. $9 billion: Taxpayer money that disappeared in Iraq. $549.7 million: Value of unaccounted for spare parts shipped to contractors in 2004. $1.4 billion: Overcharges by Halliburton. 6,000-10,000: Estimated number of U.S. troops whose injuries have included brain trauma. 30%: Estimated percentage of troops who develop serious mental problems within three or four months after returning from Iraq. 1-2 a day: Hours of electricity available to the average residential household in Baghdad. (Actual figure unknown since U.S. no longer reports the electricity figures for the city.) 14: Journalists killed by U.S. forces in Iraq. 112: Total number of journalists killed in Iraq. 5000: "Diehard" insurgents the Pentagon estimated to be fighting on July 28, 2003. 20-30,000: Insurgents the Pentagon estimated in October 2006. 70,000: Insurgents the Pentagon estimated in March 2007. 69%: Iraqis who say U.S. presence worsens security situation (polled in March 2007). 71%: Iraqis who want U.S. troops out within a year (polled in September 2006). 71%: Americans who want U.S. to withdraw troops by April 2008 (polled in July 2007). (via www.dailykos.com)
how do you feel about all these republicans going around wishing for more terrorists attacks so people will support bush again? maybe i missed it, but i havent seen people like you are basso condemning them for wishing harm upon american people.
the responses in this thread prove the point. other than DM and me, not a single poster has even entertained the possibility the authors might have a point. Otto gets close, but then speaks as if the surge is over, rather than ongoing.
Perhaps that's your own fault. For 4 years you've posted articles that suggest things are getting better and you are consistently completely wrong. Why would you expect anyone to consider what you have to say at this point? You've already shown you have no interest in reality. Iraq could be levelled by a nuke and you'd still say "things are getting better. the media is just not showing the 50 people that survived in an underground bunker and are homeschooling their kids."
It's really very simple. When you are consistently wrong about an issue, you lose any creditability when offering opinions or observations about that issue. Pollack/O'Hanlon/basso have been consistently wrong about progress in Iraq, therefore, people with even a little bit of common sense give them zero creditability when they spout off about Iraq now. I'm sure if basso and assmagic had a financial advisor that got them into stocks that tanked for four years in a row, they would just keep ponying up their money in the hope that THIS time he was right. Or maybe they wouldn't, because in that scenario, they'd actually have some skin in the game.
At the very least, I'd say that Bush and his planners were not looking for a permanent fix but a political fix to ride out his term. Problem is, he used our troops as down payment and brushed off signs of an overstretched military.
Giff, you are just blinded by hate for that financial advisor and are willing to sacrifice your retirement so that he continues to looks bad.
Via Washington Monthly, I came across this interview, of which I found the bolded parts particularly telling...
what's your point? that things aren't perfect is no reason to ignore, or downplay, or attempt to discredit, when things go well.
be careful what you wish for rimmy: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072702123_pf.html [rquoter]Political Cover for Whom? By Peter W. Rodman Sunday, July 29, 2007; B07 President Bush is facing some painful choices on Iraq. As he weighs the high strategic stakes in the Middle East and the high political stakes at home, history may provide some relevant lessons. Since the Iraq Study Group issued its report in December, Bush has been urged from many quarters to seek a bipartisan bargain with Congress. This, the theory goes, will give him political cover for the strategic as well as political risks that disengagement may entail. But Bush should be wary: The promised political cover may not materialize. If he begins a disengagement against his better judgment and that of his commanders, and the result accelerates the destabilization of Iraq and the Middle East, the names of James Baker, Lee Hamilton, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will be relegated to footnotes. History's bumper sticker will record that George W. Bush pulled the plug. It will be his legacy alone. The president may prefer, instead, that the historical record be unambiguous about who forced an unwise decision. Public opinion, of course, can change. In 1973, 1974 and 1975, Congress undoubtedly felt it was reflecting the country's disillusionment with the Vietnam War, and it forced a disengagement over the Nixon administration's strong objection. Yet military historians are coming to a consensus that by the end of 1972, there was a much-improved balance of forces in Vietnam, reflected in the 1973 Paris agreement, and that Congress subsequently pulled the props out from under that balance of forces -- dooming Indochina to a bloodbath. This is now a widely accepted narrative of the endgame in Vietnam, and it has haunted the Democrats for a generation. Today, Congress, too, faces a pivotal choice on Iraq. The moment that Congress enacts a law constricting the president's freedom of action in Iraq, it buys a considerable share of responsibility for the war's outcome. Will tomorrow's narrative be that the strategic military situation in Iraq was starting to improve in 2007 but Congress pulled the plug anyway -- emboldening Islamist extremists throughout the region and demoralizing all our friends? If so, perhaps it's not President Bush who needs political cover from his opponents but they who want political cover from him. The huge strategic stakes in the Middle East argue for resisting calls for any U.S. withdrawal not warranted by conditions in Iraq. The irony is that whoever is elected president next year -- from whichever party -- will come to understand this better than anyone. From this perspective, Bush owes it to his successor to achieve the maximum possible stabilization of Iraq so that his successor will have the maximum options. The successor can pull the plug immediately and blame it all on Bush; go all-out to win; or begin a controlled disengagement, as Richard Nixon decided to do when he inherited the Vietnam War in 1969. Conversely, if Bush himself begins a process of unraveling, his successor will inherit a range of choices far worse than what the country faces now. Those running for president, especially, would be well advised, amid the excitement of the campaign, to reflect on what will be required of the winner. Potentially the most destabilizing new factor in the world in the coming period is the fear of American weakness. All the hyperventilation about American hubris and unilateralism is a tired cliche; it never had much validity anyway. The real problem is that the pressures pushing us to accept defeat in Iraq are already profoundly unnerving to allies in the Middle East, and elsewhere, who rely on the United States to help ensure their security in the face of continuing dangers. If we let ourselves be driven out of Iraq, what the world will seek most from the next president will not be some great demonstration of humility and self-abasement -- that is, to be the "un-Bush" -- but rather for reassurance that the United States is still strong, capable of acting decisively and committed to the security of its friends. Given our domestic debate, to provide this reassurance will be an uphill battle in the best of circumstances. It will be even more difficult if President Bush succumbs to all the pressures on him to do the wrong thing in Iraq. The writer, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, served most recently as assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs.[/rquoter]
lol at the idea that we were about to win the Vietnam war if the Congress hadn't stabbed the president in the back at the moment of victory. This is your own private Dolchstoßlegende, except with Democrats instead of Jews. Do you still show that you have no idea why we lost. You can lead a horse to water, but not to drink. The application of additional force makes no difference. We weren't fighting the Battle of the Bulge. See hearts and minds. Seriously, would the British have defeated the Americans in the Revolutionary War they just had a few more troops?
