There are no wmds in Iraq. I'd call the surge a success! My America doesn't like quitters. Go back to your french-america, where you can surrender with the french!
well, there is some signs of growing political stability. Kurds seem to be more happy with maliki who is beginning to implement better policy - likely out of his fear of being ousted. improved security has a way of improving political issues....and then you have the awakening councils and sunnis beginning to get back involved in the political process. a long way to go for sure, but it's the first positive momentum in a long time. I don't think you can call the surge or shift in tactics a failure just yet. The verdict is still out on Iraq. Regardless, my hope is that we can get out and have Iraq standing on it's own two feet even if a bit wobbly. For the first time, i think that's a possibility. would have never thought that a few years ago.
I agree there has been progress, but even if the surge had created complete political stability in Iraq, it could still be a failure in the war on terror, because the real enemy is in Afghanistan/Pakistan, and not Iraq. So while things are going backwards there because of the surge, then the Surge is a failure in terms of the war on terror.
well sure - we should have never gone into iraq, and by that metric the surge can not be a success. but if it helps us get out of iraq sooner rather then later, then it is a success in my opinion. there's already talk of pulling troops out of iraq and putting them into afganistan. afganistan is going to be a big mess for a long time. at least iraq has oil to pay for infrastructure - what does afganistan have? as for the war on terror - the best way to gain a victory there is to get these two countries on their feet, and then get the palestinian conflict settled. sure that's no easy task, but getting all of this done will probably do a lot. the u.s. has to be seen as a benevolent force - and so long as our military is there that's hard to do, as well as our support for israel. but accomplihing that is critical because in my mind why it won't address all that is wrong with the region, it certainly will do a lot to remove us as a target of blame.
Define success T_J. I love how the right wing-nuts tout the surge as a rally around and hump the flag with terrorist-repellent lapel pins event. The problem with the damn surge is that IT HAPPENED TOO FREAKIN LATE! The war wasn't meant to be "won" fast (ask Collin Powell and the other high ranking officers who were SMEARED by the administration when they called for higher troop levels). Instead of quickly seizing the moment with a massive amount of troops, we kept our levels too low and foreign insurgents were able to travel into iraq, recruit and set up shop. Not to mention the lack of foresight by the administration of the hornets nest we were about to stir up with local militias. Our country has grown tired of war because we chose the wrong battleground and we've lost faith in our leadership. Everyone (with the exception of the state of california) supported Afghanistan and we abandoned them for the most part. If we have to finish the job, its in Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan where AQ is based.
Surge meets purge The McCain camaign is poking fun at Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for a report in today's New York Daily News that he had cleansed BarackObama.com of past criticism of the surge strategy in Iraq. "BARACK OBAMA "REFINING" IRAQ POSITION ON OWN WEBSITE," blares the McCain release, which helpfully links to the former versions of the site. The Daily News report by James Gordon Meek says: "Barack Obama's campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop ‘surge’ in Iraq, the Daily News has learned. The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a ‘problem’ that had barely reduced violence. ‘The surge is not working,’ Obama's old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks - not U.S. military muscle - for quelling violence in Anbar Province. … "Obama's campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an "improved security situation" paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007. It praises G.I.s' ‘hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics and enormous sacrifice.’ Campaign aide Wendy Morigi said Obama is ‘not softening his criticism of the surge. We regularly update the Web site to reflect changes in current events.’ ” http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0708/Surge_meets_purge.html Even Obama recognizes that the surge is working
Maybe we should mix them together.. I bet my car would like it better than having to eat corn.. hehehe would be a smooth ride, but you may not always end up where you were trying to go...
i think some people are missing the point, the article is about "the war on terror", I'm glad things are going well in iraq, i'm glad mccain was right about the surge because if the surge hadn't it would have been an even bigger mess. and in the long run, it may be the best strategy because it may leave iraq more stable then just a phased withdrawl without locking down security. however, the point is that we don't have enough troops in afghanistan, there was a major attack there sunday, notice, none of us troop hating lib pigs posted that, the terrorists were stationed there. the article also mentions the pakistan border and the reason the situation is deteriorating is because the military is over stretched, the surge may have helped iraq, it didn't help our military where the terrorists are. get it, got it, good
That decline in recruiting might also be attributable to American brothers, sisters, sons, and daughters getting killed fighting a war in Iraq that should have never happened. Regardless of whether the surge is working. I'm sure that if the "War on Terrorism" would have remained focused in Afghanistan, where the terrorists are, there would be no problem recruiting soldiers or with us liberals supporting the war.
No, if the surge had taken place in Afghanistan in the first place we would be far better off. I think pgabriel hit the nail on the head. This isn't about what's working or not working in Iraq. It's about the war on terror. AFghanistan/Pakistan are far more important in that war, and by diverting troops to Iraq(no matter how peacy everything there is) it hurt the war on terror. This is a clear cut difference between McCain, and Obama. Obama has been talking about AFghanistan and Pakistan for quite awhile now. It isn't until recent events that McCain has started talking about it. One leads and the other is following.
