The surge isn't a new tactic and has been tried before. The new tactic is paying off and working with the armed Sunni groups that are undermining the Iraqi govt. Our own people have failed in this war, and the people that have failed most of all Is the President and his administration.
Who failed and why is obviously debatable (this thread is 37 pages ) but the fact is the job is not done and we can't quit. Calling whatever the new strategy is "The surge" really insults our military. This "the surge" is exactly like the last "the surge" why didn't they call it "the really really hard push" this time that would sound cool. I'm quite sure they are trying new things and they may or may not work and they will have to try something else. I am certainly not a liberal but I can understand that if you are you would like to see change. The current administration has given the liberals enough ammunition to bring about that change without using the war as a political sledgehammer.
I don't know him personally. I think that he went from attacking the administration because he thought it was the right thing to do to attacking the war because it had the posibility of benefiting him personally. You can't fault someone for doing what they think is right but when your motives turn to personal gain over the well being of our troups or the people that we are fighting for I have a problem with that.
Just curious, but how would throwing away a distinguished 30 year career and walking away from what you loved to do and speak out about what he saw as a failed policy benefit him personally?
Thats what I was trying to say in my previous post, he left to do what he felt was right and you can't fault a man for that even if you don't like what he is saying. After the media and politics got ahold of him his motives changed.
How do you know this? Maybe his motives have always been against the war and he finally had to quit because it was morally the right thing to do. Anyway it really all goes back to your original premise that all who appose the war or want to end the war are cowards. I think you are being a bit myopic with blanket statements like that. There are plenty of people here that are against the war because they feel it is a distraction from the real war on terror.
You are wrong, I don't think that all who oppose the war and want the war to end are cowards. I oppose the war and want the war to end, but not because its hard. I oppose the war because people die in war. A coward is somebody who sees a person that can't protect themselves being hurt and does nothing. A coward is a person that makes a big mess in somebody elses world and then walks away leaving them to clean up and die because it was too hard. The myopic statements are your own.
from Andrew Sullivan -- His speech yesterday actually managed to shock. You might think that, in wartime, a president would acknowledge what no one denies is a terribly grim decision in front of us - whether to pursue a clearly unwinnable war in order to govern a clearly ungovernable country - or withdraw and redeploy in ways that will doubtless lead to even more bloodshed. But no. There is no gray here; no awful decision for the least worst option; not acknowledgment of his own moral culpability for such a disaster. There is instead an accusation that those who reach a different judgment about the course of the war are, in fact, enemies of the troops: To place all the troops into the position of favoring one strategy ahead of us rather than another, and to accuse political opponents of trying to "pull the rug out from under them," is a, yes, fascistic tactic designed to corral political debate into only one possible patriotic course. It's beneath a president to adopt this role, beneath him to coopt the armed services for partisan purposes. It should be possible for a president to make an impassioned case for continuing his own policy in Iraq, without accusing his critics of wanting to attack and betray the troops. But that would require class and confidence. The president has neither. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/08/the-weimar-pres.html
"Strikingly Negative" Iraq Report Leaked To Preempt White House Doctoring ------------------- Report Finds Little Progress On Iraq Goals GAO Draft at Odds With White House By Karen DeYoung and Thomas E. Ricks Washington Post Staff Writers Thursday, August 30, 2007; Page A01 Iraq has failed to meet all but three of 18 congressionally mandated benchmarks for political and military progress, according to a draft of a Government Accountability Office report. The document questions whether some aspects of a more positive assessment by the White House last month adequately reflected the range of views the GAO found within the administration. The strikingly negative GAO draft, which will be delivered to Congress in final form on Tuesday, comes as the White House prepares to deliver its own new benchmark report in the second week of September, along with congressional testimony from Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker. They are expected to describe significant security improvements and offer at least some promise for political reconciliation in Iraq. The draft provides a stark assessment of the tactical effects of the current U.S.-led counteroffensive to secure Baghdad. "While the Baghdad security plan was intended to reduce sectarian violence, U.S. agencies differ on whether such violence has been reduced," it states. While there have been fewer attacks against U.S. forces, it notes, the number of attacks against Iraqi civilians remains unchanged. It also finds that "the capabilities of Iraqi security forces have not improved." "Overall," the report concludes, "key legislation has not been passed, violence remains high, and it is unclear whether the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion in reconstruction funds," as promised. While it makes no policy recommendations, the draft suggests that future administration assessments "would be more useful" if they backed up their judgments with more details and "provided data on broader measures of violence from all relevant U.S. agencies." A GAO spokesman declined to comment on the report before it is released. The 69-page draft, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post, is still undergoing review at the Defense Department, which may ask that parts of it be classified or request changes in its conclusions. The GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, normally submits its draft reports to relevant agencies for comment but makes its own final judgments. The office has published more than 100 assessments of various aspects of the U.S. effort in Iraq since May 2003. The person who provided the draft report to The Post said it was being conveyed from a government official who feared that its pessimistic conclusions would be watered down in the final version -- as some officials have said happened with security judgments in this month's National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. Congress requested the GAO report, along with an assessment of the Iraqi security forces by an independent commission headed by retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones, to provide a basis for comparison with the administration's scorecard. The Jones report is also scheduled for delivery next week. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/29/AR2007082902434.html?hpid=topnews
I recently saw the Bush speech from January where he said that if the govt. didn't meet the benchmarks set for them, then they would be held accountable. Looks like another broken Bush pledge.
"Being held accountable" means committing a coup and overthrowing the elected Maliki government. We’ll see
After the NIE report and GAO report - it does appear that dispite the success of the surge in curbing violence and combating insurgents, the political solution remains elusive. I don't think simply withdrawing is a wise move either, especially with Iran waiting to fill the void and expand it's control into Iraq. That's the last thing we can afford. I think we're seeing a migration and redistribution of the population, and that implies we're headed for partition. So in the end, I think that's what needs to happen. Turkey won't be happy, but what can you do? We should partition the country into three, and once the dust settles, leave.
I saw some cbs news report that the adminstration is now wondering if democracy can't work. that's the **** we've been telling you for five years mr. dumbest pres of all-time.
I really favor this idea -- at least the long term odds of one part of Iraq not hating us would be increased.
