I don't claim to be a liberal nor speak for anyone else here but I can take the original article at face value and still believe that things are going badly in Iraq. Over the past four years there have been lots of reports of things improving, turning the corner, victory in sight and etc.. yet we are still fighting as hard, if not harder, than we have been so pardon me if I am very skeptical of the latest report of success. I don't believe the original authors are deliberately being deceitful but that Iraq is a big and complicated place and while the surge is very likely producing short term localized success that may not be the case over the long run or throughout Iraq.
well swimmingly, relatively speaking. politically its still a mess and not much the US can do about that. But you could point to the lower levels of US troops deaths. its not a great measure, but considering there are more troops there and are being more aggressive in seeking "bad guys", that says something (either that offense is the best defense, that they have cut back trying to challenge/target troops and thus going for more soft targets, or something else) but new yorker has a valid point. some are so concerned about past failures they ignore any "progress" (relatively speaking) and cannot re-evaluate the current situation...past failures dont rule out future success, only if you focus on them and not continue on.
The problem though is that you can't just ignore everything that happened prior to the surge started. Its true past failures don't rule out future success but the only way we can attempt to guess at the future is to study the historical record. The historical record with Iraq is that surges have been tried before and there have been many reports of progress being made. Those reports have all ended up being over optimistic and that pattern should warrant skepticism. Its the converse of the boy who cried wolf.
we all know that you like to argue just for the sake of arguing, so i dont know why i bother, but you stated in this very thread that you believe the war is a failed cause and you havent changed your mind on that. yet you spew this unsubstantiated garbage. how are you being "open minded" when you say the war is a "failed cause"?
C'mon, you know the liberals won't embrace the term "re-evaluate" if it means possible success...The political implications of success in Iraq would be the worst thing that could happen...To them, it is evidence of party first,...country down the line... They cling to reports that suit them, and dispel the reports that help America...sad and pathetic...
A look at the monthly U.S. casualty rates over each of these years: YEAR CASUALITY RATE 2003 48.6 per month 2004 70.8 per month 2005 70.5 per month 2006 68.5 per month 2007 92.9 per month http://thinkprogress.org/
admit what? i really got to you didnt i. you just cant seem to get over me. do you think new yorker is being open minded when he says the war is "a failed cause"?
i have yet to see any war opponents actually say that they want the troops to fail to make themselves look good. but what i have seen is prominent members of the republican party calling for more terrorist attacks on america so people will support bush again. how come none of you bush-supporters condemn stuff like this? - here are your leaders wishing harm and death upon you and not a peep.
no, you dont have to "ignore" it. you are right. But you cant dwell on it either. acknowledge it and why it was wrong (i think a big problem was underestimation of insurgent operations and foreign interference, plus the military being in a holding pattern, rather than an aggressive one). but as is, there is a 'new strategy', more troops, different commanders (at several levels) and as you mention some positive signs after a short period of time. Of course that can be taken with a grain of salt...things will probably get uglier before they get better. and you are right, falsely crying wolf too many times turns people skeptical, but eventually there will actually be a wolf there. I just hope people arent so jaded to ignore the cry when the wolf is actually there.
50% of the troops who have actually served say iraq is unwinnable. are they just being partisan and putting their party first?
maybe you're right. i hope not but i tend to be too optimistic at times about peoples ability to put their parties aside...i know, silly me. i should know better after a few months here
It is not a WAR, it is an occupation. Our military is trying to do something they are NOT trained to do and will ultimately fail. DD
iraq is unwinnable to a certain point. its not a military operation, soley. The military can only provide a structure for the iraqi govt to function. it is only 'won' when both sides fullfill their duties. And from the military side, it seems there has been some progress. now the govt side is another story. When they reconvene in early september...that will be a big moment.
Article to back this up? Evidence?.... Don't forget: ...contains criteria of: A. cross reference support B. specific meaningful evidence C. cited names of consequence ...till then, I'm not ready to admit...
Getting back to the original article which stirred up the liberal's world and caused a threat was the fact you had 2 analysts who never had a history of rah-rah for the Iraq War...In fact otherwise... But based on 8 days actually being there, they can't help but state the differences in before and now...It is indicative of the impact of Gen. Patraeus and the troops... That is something that should be embraced to the chagrin of the left,...because although it may loom badly for the democratic party...It is good news for everyone...and as Americans it's good news... Kudos to the NYT for realizing this...
