Can anyone now say the Surge isn't working?
 

Even John Murtha, who compared our troops to Nazis has described the VAST success of the surge.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07333...pid=latest.xml

So, the Marines in Anbar Province (Al Qaeda stronghold just 1 year ago) biggest problem they admit themselves is boredom. Can there be people who are still saying the Surge won't work?

Can we realistically say that the Counter-Insurgency is, and has been, working?

I'm one of those people that says the surge isn't working, and here's why:
http://icasualties.org/oif/

Period 6 is the "surge" (2/1/07-today). Notice how the average after the surge (2.58) is higher than the average before (2.39). Not only that, but there is no evidence whatsoever that Iraqi civilian deaths have decreased.

Nope, those numbers have not changed at all.

The nail in the coffin is John "Nazi" Murtha admitting we're on the road to success. Bombings are down, attacks are down, security forces are having more success working as the primary assault forces, and utilities are returning to larger areas around the country.

No we can't just pull out now and expect it to be hunky-dory, but to ignore the success is just being stubborn.

thing is, seaver, that in this kind of conflict, there are going to be spaces that are more or less active and times when they will and wont be as well--there's nothing like a consistent battle-line or any type of continuous engagement--so alot of bets are off in terms of assessment of that is happening overall based on anecdotal evidence. without meaning to trivialize anything, its almost like from an old-school military strategy perspective, this war is entirely anecdotal.

so what i think is in that particular sector, the goal of the offensive or "surge" worked, but it's not obvious how--these particular folk might be sitting around alot, but you can't tell if this follows from a "win" in the sense of much meaningful destruction of an enemy the americans can actually find on a consistent basis, or if they simply moved. the writer of the article doesn't know either way and draws no conclusions from this particular situation.

fact is that it's hard to make any global assessments.
casualty rates overall indicate that the fighting is diffuse but continuous, more or less---so that's one.
assessments of what if going on in general that do not originate with the american press pool paint a darker picture than the article you bit above, which does come from the pool. what you rarely get in the america press--fed to the pool--is anything that even appears to be a rational assessment of the overall situation. what the press has become, in the context of the press pool, is a marketing relay system that links pentagon-cleared infotainment to press outlets to a public.

and then you have a contextual change in that turkey appears to be already making forays into kurdish territory in the north and is gearing up for a larger operation maybe, so that'll tank the situation in kurdistan.

but seriously, it's hard to feel as though we as merely the public have information reliable or comprehensive enough to *know* anything--we can assemble information that gives a *sense* of it, but there are always mitigating factors that can be introduced--so it comes down in a strange way to what you want to see. and it's at this point that judgments become difficult: if you opposed the war, is there a level of vindication to be had from assembling a negative image? does that mean then that you are treating violence as a source of pleasure/confirmation? or if you supported the war, does the contrary hold? and if that's the case, do parallel a prior committments cause you to not look at information to the contrary?

i dont say this because i have a secret card to introduce at the end that will reveal all--i say it because i think this is pretty much the position the ongoing informational and political management process has put us in.

You beat me to it Sever.

Sadly a 'victory' in Iraq is the last thing the American left wants right now, for obvious reasons.

So in your opinion the surge is only held once a year? Or do you think that December is the only month that counts?

The rate of coalition deaths has increased since the surge, as I stated and supported above, and there is absolutely no evidence that Iraqi civilian death rates have dropped off. In fact, they are not only holding steady but are increasing. Displacement of Iraqi civilians is the highest in history, let alone the past few years. How would you measure success?

There's no such thing as "victory" in Iraq until certain terms are provided by those committing the war. If Bush can come on TV and say, "We will have won when a, b and c have been accomplished", then we may have some idea of when this mess may finish.

The left didn't want us there in the first place. Had we not been ignored thousands of American soldiers would be with their families, millions of Iraqis would be alive, and Katrina wouldn't have been a problem because the National Guard would have been home to take care of an actual threat to the US. The right is guilty of genocide and treason.

But let's blame the left, shall we?

No it hasn't

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...casualties.htm

Its pretty clear its been on the decline since September, or do you expect dramatic results the day the surge started and use that as proof of failure?

Come on suck it up, something is working in Iraq besides running Kusinich style.

No what hasn't? No the number of coalition deaths hasn't increased since February of 2007? You're dead wrong on that one, along with the 345 dead soldiers that you dishonor.

i wouldn't normally do this, but there is a more productive way to manage this discussion than falling directly into this republicans-versus-everybody else kinda thing or it's inverse.

i tried to outline why above--i'll just repeat it here:

a. from a vertically organized military viewpoint, this is an "unconventional war" so the traditional ways of measuring what happened and why are not operative--no more in iraq than in vietnam (remember the daily body count?) despite the self-evident differences between the situations.

b. the article in the op makes NO judgements as to WHY things are calm for this particular batallion. so it provides NO basis for making stuff up about why the situation obtains. seaver at least brought up the obvious next move--try to find a way to generalize from this--but it's not terribly informative as an index. it just isn't. think about it.

c. then there is the problem of information management, marketing war, etc etc etc.

d. then there is the problem of where and how you might get information that might actually BE informative about the general situation.

e. but because the information is so scattered and comes from a wide range of sources, any of us can fall into the game of projection with a few arbitrary references draped around it. you know, politics as 'just my opinion man"--this shows why that's worthless yet again.

this last point is a **problem** and we are all wasting our time talking about iraq right now unless we acknowledge it. but doing that would make it less easy to take facile shots at each other. so maybe it's a good idea to head that way.

The purpose of the surge was to provide the "breathing space" needed that would allow the Iraqi government to achieve specific goals. The government has further fractured over the period of the surge and has ceased to be functional in any meaningful way.

It should also be noted that al-Sadr has ordered his Mahdi Army to stand down temporarily and I think some of the reduction in conflict can be credited to that.

Our occupation of Iraq has more to do with the ongoing insurgency than any surge is able to resolve. What is the "victory" we hope to achieve, if we are the source of the problem?

btw just in case we ever reach the point of talking about specific places/situations, there's a useful map of iraq here:

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middl...q_pol_2004.jpg

with a zoom.

it's also possible that this has an effect on the overall conflict situation:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world...239908,00.html

you know. nothing to do with the surge, but a kinda big deal on its own.
taking apart the legal consequences of the occupation means that maybe--just maybe--some groups which saw themselves as entirely outside conventional politics might reassess their positions.

the "surge" would be a non-sequitor, then.

this isn't an easy interpretive problem: i dont see the point of pretending it is.

Very Valid points RB, but if you want to take a military historian perspective you can't compare Iraq to Vietnam quite that easily.

Iraq was a counter-insurgency after the 2nd week of the war effectively. There was no military infrastructure, little or no chain of command, and no battle lines. Vietnam constantly switched back and forth between counter-insurgencies and traditional military conflict.

Contrary to popular belief that last statement was true. Every time it switched to traditional military conflict we massacred the Vietnamese. The Tet Offensive, though potrayed as a disaster by the news (nice parallel to your argument), was a complete military success.

The reason I bring this up is counter-insurgencies and traditional military conflicts are fought with completely different tactics, and have wildly different outcomes. Closer parallels to these are the British in Burma (or the Gurkas) or us in the Philippeans. Counter-Insurgencies have always lasted around 10 years, ending with either exhaustion of the enemies or further incorporation and empowerment of said group into the central government.

That is a major reason for your article (which I was aware of, just left out) that I see as no big deal is because it satisfies the second of the prior listing. Yes we are empowering members of a group we just wiped out, however their power is SEVERELY limited and in my opinion is acceptable if it lowers violence. With less than a handful of those prior Ba'ath party members involved in the government, we have won over their family and most likely their entire tribe to supporting the government. All of a sudden we have made a large ally for a small price.

I agree it's hard to gauge, which is why I keep pointing to Murtha. A man who is so strongly opposed to the war from day one is openly stating it is on the mend. I have no doubt he has better access than us to information across the board, and even he has come to believe in the success where no one can say he's just cow-towing to the administration.

Exactly, and there are plenty of other contributing factors. It's the most transparent of political grandstanding to say "The surge is working". Is anyone actually naive enough to think that cause-and-effect can possibly be that simple in as complex a theater as Iraq is right now?

actually, ratbastid, I think it depends how you define the "surge." Is it jsut the increase in manpower or the change in command and strategy that called for the increased manpower? It seems obvious (to me, at least) that changing to a more population-based strategy under a counter-insurgency expert (Petraeus) has enabled the US military to react more flexibly and creatively, and to take advantage of the opportunity presented by the sheikhs reasserting their authority when AQI overstepped its bounds and got the population pissed off at them.

I wouldn't say it's the only cause, but clearly it has contributed mightily to the increasing stabilization of the country, the return of refugees, the improving economy, etc, etc, etc. A lot of that is also the Iraqis themselves getting tired of the ongoing instability.

It hard for me to see much success in the last year. The number and frequency of civilian deaths may be down significantly ...or not, depending on who is counting. But is it a result of the surge or might other factors have had an impact, like the fact that 2 million Iraqis have fled Baghad and surrounding areas.

Baghdad has gone from a multi-ethnic city to a Shiia dominated city, with walls separating the Sunni population, including most of the few returning refugees (who are being told by the goverment to stay away because its still not safe). The few Christians and other minorities are gone for good.

To maintain stability in Baghdad, the US is paying and arming Sunni civilians groups, called Concerned Local Citizens, at the same time we are arming the Shiia dominated police force that is infiltrated by Shiia militant militias. Is a clash between these two groups inevitable?

There has been virtually no progress in meeting political benchmarks and the central government is dysfunctional.

In the South, al Sadar's Mahdi Army is in control of Basra.

In the Anbar area, the so-called Anbar Awakening is where the US has paid and armed Sunni tribal leaders to fight al queda. As a result, violence may be down, but these same tribal leaders have built their own power bases with US money and weapons and have yet to show much loyalty to a central government.

In the north, the US is turning a blind eye as our ally Turkey conducts air strikes into Kurdish areas.

Where's the progress towards long term peace and stability...I just don see it.

And by nearly every poll or focus group of Iraqi citizens, speeches in the Iraqi parliament (on the rare occasions when they actually meet), discussions with persons on the streets in Baghdad, editorials in the local newspapers, etc....the Iraqi people believe that their best hope for success is for the occupation to end and the US troops to go home.

Murtha also said the central government is dysfunctional and the Bush administration must provide an exit strategy.

And I dont recall Murtha ever comparing US troops to Nazis as you allege.

Yup...it isn't working.....

Compare one of the most accurate corporate news media accounts of what happened in Iraq's broken parliament on saturday. The new law, passed with barely 145 of parliament's 275 seats occupied. The law, window dressing allegedly to benefit predominantly Sunni ex-baathists, was boycotted by 2 blocs totaling 55 Sunni seats, and enthusiastically voted for by Shi'a and Kurdish members.

There is no indication that the surge is working for it's advertised goal to be accomplished...to "buy time" for the Iraqi government to get it's shit togather. Last month the same parliament closed on December 7, for the rest of the month.

You want to be vindicated so badly, if you've supported the illegal invasion and botched US occupation. Iraq is shattered and it will divide into at least three parts, a victory for Iran, unless the US further wrecks it's own future by contriving enough of a provocation to attack Iran.

The surge, to buy time, is a farce, as were the accusations of, and then the hunt for,WMD. The surge is to buy time for GW Bush to save face.

If you missed my thread detailing the necon attack on and sabotage of Juan Cole and his career, catch up here:

<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=127679&highlight=juan+cole+yale">Iraq:"It can be saved and won", Can You Be Reliably Informed Yet Have That Opinion?</a>

That's exactly my point. To say "The surge is working" is to approve of a Bush plan and therefore Bush. I mean, my God, how many months were they hard-selling us on that? The idea that more feet in the dirt would solve the whole problem? And it was a hard sell, because at the time it looked like just sending more American meat into the grinder.

"Surge" was defined as "more troops". Going back now to redefine it as "the prevailing situation as it stands now including all factors" it is disingenuous and is, as I mentioned above, the most transparent of political wordsmithing.

I suspect that other strategies, combined with the other factors you mention, WITHOUT a troop escalation might have produced the same results. It's the approach that should have been taken starting right at "Mission Accomplished". So, I guess I should congratulate the Administration and those accountable for the war effort for only using up three years and 3000+ body bags before they got their heads out of their asses?

Let me ask; does saying the Surge is working imply tacit approval of the entire war/the administration's foreign policy? Does it justify going to war in the first place?

ratbastid, if you believe as I do that "surge" was a misnomer, then yes, the surge is working. The additional troops were requested as a result of a new strategy being implemented, not vice versa.

Not incidentally, that is an indictment of the prior strategy and the people who implemented it. People need to learn from history: the current strategy is more of an Abrams strategy, whereas the prior one was more of a Westmoreland strategy. You'd think that would have been accounted for in the planning, but apparently it wasn't. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. And in this case, we lost three years and thousands of precious lives.

I will say it appears to be getting better. But, I have no idea on what is going on over there. It could be that they are taking a break and only randomly fighting until a future US president just pulls out. Then the Shiia/Sunni will try for a major power grab.

If McCain becomes president (and we stay in) and the situation is peaceful in 2010, I'll be convinced that we could start making plans for a controlled withdrawal. With the assumption that if things deteriorate, that we would stay longer.

Seaver your post is so miss informed it doesn't suit you well.

First Murtha did not say the surge is working, look at the whole quote. He said some aspects of it is working but the purpose was to provide space for the government to make progress which it has not done. Which means it has failed. It is expected that if we put in more troops the violence would go down but if we removed the troops again what would happen?

Also Anbar province is not where the surge took place and its security improvements is a result of the tribal leaders turning on Iraq not the surge.

QFT

To me, that's about where the buck stops - the rabid-right will say "this strategy is working" and the loony-left will "no it isn't".

I have no idea which is which.

But at the end of the day, this whole hair-brained adventure has been a disaster on a bunch of levels, and I cannot conceive that anyone still thinks this was a good idea.

Tens, maybe hundreds of thousands are dead, a country is in pieces, and a whole region is utterly unstable.

Even CNN reported (finally) that civilian casualties are down 80% and coalition casualites are down 85%.


Harry Ried, who declared the Surge a failure before all the troops were even on the ground has now changed his tune and stated the Surge is working.


Only those plugging their ears and going "LALALALALALALALALA" would think the Surge isn't doing exactly what it was designed to do.

Right, if we push the bar low enough, everyone wins. Just like when recruitment numbers were down, we started recruiting drunks, convicts and retirees. Or when the army stopped reporting bombing deaths as combat casualties. That must be some tasty kool-aid.

:thumbsup: keke ^__^ ggnewmap :thumbsup:

It's funny you should mention complete and intentional ignorance to the effect of the surge, because your post is a prime example.
The Iraqis had only met three of the eighteen criteria at the time of the legally mandated and required GAO assessment of the Surge's success or failure, BUT NO ONE PANICK! Patraeus says that's okay. ...oh and the decrease in violence? It turns out that is the result of areas being overrun by Sunnis and Shias. That and since the troop surge the rate of Iraqi's fleeing the country have increased.

But I'm sure you already knew all that.

Once you kill everybody the casualty rate falls to zero. They are just playing with numbers. How many US troops actually came back dead... not what numbers do they report? I've heard it's more like 10,000 than 3,000.

I hadn't posted in this thread yet, but I think I will now in response to something like this.

I'm generally in the camp who thinks that the surge isn't really working (at least not in the way people had hoped). I'm sure these extra personnel aren't just standing around, but they aren't having the effect people think they are.

The surge might seem to be working only if you look at the big picture (i.e. the casualty statistics, etc.). But the camp I'm in acknowledges the fact that there are around 2 million Iraqis displaced within the country, and another 2 million displaced outside. What we are seeing is ethnic cleansing (not to be confused with genocide) actually working. There are some areas where the minority has become the majority because of this displacement, and there is little evidence that this will ever revert. There are stories of families returning, but these are exaggerated.

The surge likely isn't working. The surge is likely something that was too little, too late. If there's anything that is working, it is ethnic cleansing and tribalism. When you continue to separate people who hate one another, they tend to kill each other at a slower pace.

Iraq is broken. The Americans cannot fix it militarily.

Iraq has roughly the same kind of reconciliation that the Bosnians and Kosovars have. Except that Tito wasn't as bloodthirsty as Saddam was, and he died in peace, which meant his country disintegrated in slow motion.

If that is the case, and I dont agree it is, then how will the continued US military presence lead to a political solution?

This is a big question and deserves serious answers, many of which I've glimpsed above.

That the number of casualties - including both civilians and US/Iraqi military - has dropped very significantly in the last year is beyond doubt. I will grab more stats on this later if I get a chance after work, as I recall seeing some nice graphs. The number of attack videos released by the insurgent groups' various media arms has also decreased dramatically... from one or two a day to a handful per week.

That said, there are a lot of reasons why we might have seen this happen.

1) The surge - not so much the increase in troops, but the tactical shift on the ground and the implementation of the Petraeus strategy. I will admit straight away that we probably owe some portion of the drop in violence to this plan.

2) Sadr sitting out - the Mahdi army has been in a unilateral ceasefire and has been sitting on the sidelines, for reasons that are not a hundred percent clear at this point. Most likely they are either tired and resource-limited and using the time to regroup, or they are waiting to see which way the political winds will blow. Or, perhaps, they are receiving orders from...

3) Iran. Contrary to popular belief, the administration has in fact been talking quietly with the Iranians, through intermediaries and directly. No solution in Iraq will be complete without giving the Iranians a stake in it. It is likely that the Iranians have slowed the flow of weapons and cash over the Iranian border into the hands of Iraqi militants (mostly Shi'a but at one point also Sunni). Some circumstantial evidence of this is the drop in the number of EFPs relative to other IEDs, as the technology for EFPs was said to have come from Iran (although more recently, US military have uncovered a number of small plants producing EFP linings inside of Iraq).

4) The completion of ethnic cleansing. Iraqi neighborhoods - particularly in urban areas like Baghdad that were once quite mixed - have been cleansed to a horrific degree. This is what most of the violence in the 2005-2006 period was about. Once these neighborhoods had been 'cleaned', the violence was likely to drop because many of the country's urban areas were now broken into little Sunni or Shia enclaves controlled by armed teenagers and thugs with makeshift checkpoints.

It is true that Falluja, Anbar, and other locations have been almost completely pacified, and that is a success story that I don't mean to diminish. At the same time, it is frustrating to see that when the insurgency is eliminated in one area, more often than not it simply moves somewhere else (currently, Diyala province).

Another thing to consider is the shape of the new Iraq that is emerging under the surge. While more pacified, it is farther away, not closer, to the image of a stable, democratic Iraq that has been our goal. One has to consider, then, that while it is certainly worth a sigh of relief that the sheer brutal violence has dropped, it is not clear that we are any closer to being out of the woods because the surge has not succeeded in bringing political reconciliation (which was one of its original goals).

This means that when we leave, one or both of the following are likely to happen:

1 - Enemies that have been laying low (e.g. Sadr's Mahdi army) will re-emerge in force.
2 - Our erstwhile allies will turn on each other because there is no political consensus yet (I cannot overstate this point. The Kurds are a breath away from leaving. Urban areas in the center and south are broken into sectarian enclaves controlled by gangs, except where the US has a strong presence. The prevailing political situation in Iraq is characterized by anarchy.)

Could this form an argument against withdrawal from Iraq? Perhaps. An argument against the effectiveness of the surge? Perhaps. You can make of it what you will, but it is my honest (and, I think, fairly accurate) assessment of where Iraq is right now.

Fixed.

Fixed for real.

http://www.reuters.com/article/world...Name=worldNews

Attacks in Baghdad fall 80 percent: Iraq military

The U.S. military says attacks have fallen across Iraq by 60 percent since June

Its too long an article to link directly, but you know, just saying....

Maybe you don't like Bush, maybe you don't like the war, etc, but SOMETHING seems to be working for the better.

Edit: And a belated thanks to hiredgun, always like to read your insight on all this.

How is it better that nearly 4 million people have fled from Baghdad in the last 4 years....2 million to Syria, Lebanon and Jordan and just under 2 million to other "safer" havens within Iraq?

Or that Baghdad is becoming a walled city, segregated by religious sect?

Or that the US is arming Sunni "citizen militias" to patrol some neighborhoods in Baghdad against the wishes of the government?

All of these factors, along with the surge, account for the drop in civilian casualties.

You didn't read the article, did you, just admit it.

Just buck it up and say 'yea things are a little better but...blah blah blah'.

IS it so damn hard for some of you to admit SOMETHING might be working in Iraq, it doesn't mean you have to support the war, just a little intellectual honesty.

I agree....particularly with these observations:

2) Sadr sitting out - the Mahdi army has been in a unilateral ceasefire and has been sitting on the sidelines, for reasons that are not a hundred percent clear at this point. Most likely they are either tired and resource-limited and using the time to regroup, or they are waiting to see which way the political winds will blow. Or, perhaps, they are receiving orders from...

4) The completion of ethnic cleansing. Iraqi neighborhoods - particularly in urban areas like Baghdad that were once quite mixed - have been cleansed to a horrific degree. This is what most of the violence in the 2005-2006 period was about. Once these neighborhoods had been 'cleaned', the violence was likely to drop because many of the country's urban areas were now broken into little Sunni or Shia enclaves controlled by armed teenagers and thugs with makeshift checkpoints.

Nope...I havent read that article, but I am confident that I am as well read on developments in Iraq as you.

So where is the political progress that this surge was supposed to bring about?

Is it so damn hard to admit that political reconcilliation wont come about as a result of a continued US occupation?

Then why did you post? I mean if you want to start shouting about how its not working I'd expect you at least to take a quick look to see what it was that was posted.

I guess I can't expect more form interweb posters when we have Nancy Pelosi saying the surge has failed, BUT the troops have succeeded AND that they need to be 'honorably redeployed' (aka retreat).

When the democrat house leader is so full of double speak that George Orwell is doing 360's in his coffin, I suppose I can't expect more from like minds here.

OK...I just read it and I wouldnt change a word of my post attributing the drop in violence in Baghdad to many factors. (But just for the record, ask yourself how many posts of mine or host's or others you have commented on without reading the linked article...methinks there is a whif of a double standard in the words/deeds of one self righteous interweb poster)

So why do you think a continued US presence against the wishes of much of the Iraqi parliament and an overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people will lead to political reconciliation?....or at the very least, a functioning central government?

I would suggest that the WH and neo-con collection of talking points before the invasion and throughout the occupation is the real Orwellian doublespeak... from which they are unable to find any way out of the fucked-up quagmire they created other than "stay the course" (2005) or "stay the course - the sequel" (2006) or "stay the course redux- the third time is a charm - the surge is working" (2007 - ?)

Ustwo, you want to persuade me that the same administration that fucked the pooch so pathetically in NOLA has pulled off some kind of "miracle reversal" in Iraq?


<h3>Seems like hellish living conditions in Baghdad, thanks be to Allah that so much of the population had escaped this misery via death or by violence driven evacuation from the city.....and that there are so few remaining to further tax the deteriorating municipal utlities infrastructure.</h3>
I read the crap above and I'm thinking, boy....what a bargain....and it only took five years, cost 3,500 American lives, 20,000 serious American casualties and an immediate expense of $500 billion, leaving the US with a "broken" ground force, worn out combat troops, empty national guard equipment lots and military motor pools packed with wornout, broken down, light to heavy duty mechanized transport and combat equipment.

What a bargain, and Ustwo, you're a victim of the influence of Lincoln group military propaganda! At least the Pentagon hasn't paid a "good news" distribution service to shepherd me to my opinion of this disaster.

The American military did not count people killed by bombs, mortars, rockets or other mass attacks including suicide bombings when it reported a dramatic drop in the number of murders in the Baghdad area last month, the U.S. command said Monday.
The US military doesn't give accurate reports regarding Iraq. We've known about this for years.

Believe what you want, but don't expect everyone else to take the military at it's word. We know better.

From the article linked below:
Let's see some denial posts...the Pentagon pays Lincoln group hundreds of millions to plant favorable stories, and you guys post them for free.....

Host, that's exactly what I'm talking about. I won't know the "Surge is working" until I see independent, verifiable numbers.

My sister's son is serving in the US military, near Baghdad. I am worried about his safety. It looks like it might be over for the US....time to pick up the pieces and go home. How many more will have to die to attempt to preserve the notion that Bush and Cheney are manly men?

Where are the surge kool-ade stand attendants today....I am thirs-----tee...for some common sense.

If there are US families who have suffered the loss of life or limb of a loved one sacraficed in Bush's surge, this is what Bush says they suffered or died for:


At least we're down to less than half of our country who don't know when it's time to cut our losses.

Hmmm lonely thread....

The new US Embassy is finally ready, after a seven month delay. Why do US forces keep taking fire, at their allegedly most secure point, their HQ, if "the surge is working"?

...and the opening of the new US Embassy starts off with a nice big "fuck you" to the people of Iraq....are the diplomats even attempting to be diplomatic? Is it a smart idea to designate Blackwater, once again as State Dept. security, with the automatic anomosity the decision brings, and the added cost and hastle of sending a State Dept. "minder" on every trip outside the Embassy compound? Is there an ounce of brains in the entire Bush administration combined, or do a they all just middle fingers the size of.....you finish the sentence!

Ya think?

Watch CNBC interview of John Cusack about his new movie "WAR INC."
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=702430483&play=1

What do we need a movie like that for, John Cusack? You're just a liberal Hollywood actor trying to make trouble for The Bushes and Cheney:

Bush's brother Neil, his daddy, his uncle Bucky, Cheney and Giuliani have all made millions from the war...what's wrong with that?

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...0&postcount=22

An article (6 pages, but worth reading) in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs magazine provides what IMO is the best analysis of "The Price of the Surge" I have read:
Its hard not to believe that the Bush strategy took a bad situation and made it worse.

Did they even consider the possibility of this outcome or are they so blinded by "victory at any cost" that they dont give a shit?

I'm looking forward to the day when we have a Pres who understands and values "a comprehensive diplomatic strategy" as a component of US foreign policy...and not just in Iraq.

Does anybody know how the "4000" are counted? It doesn't include the majority of US soldiers that died because of the war in Iraq. Maybe somebody can post the 4000 names and see if we can't add another few thousand to it.

It's supposed to be many, many times that. Perhaps the public outrage would shut that misguided operation down.

Are you saying the 4000 figure is somehow a lie? I rather doubt that, much as I disagree with pretty much everything the Bush administration does. The figure comes from the Pentagon. Sites like this one quote it: http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/, and without strong evidence to the contrary, I would tend to believe them. I wondered if perhaps the 4000 killed only included *combat* fatalities, but that above link breaks out combat fatalities. Less well known are things like the number of American wounded, and the number of Iraqi's killed and wounded. Figured vary widely, but they're all horrific.

If you think the war in Iraq is wrong, 4000 dead American soldiers is outrageous enough, leaving aside all the Iraqi casualties. If you think the war is a just one, then you probably consider the casualties a necessary outcome of it.

Lie? No. Incomplete? Absolutely. It doesn't include suicides, for one.

Or soldiers that return and die of depleted uranium poisoning.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=77804

...lest we forget.

On the suicide thing. Staggering numbers. I'm not sure how many of these soldier were proud to serve their country and "help" Iraq.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/gen...s_18_vets_.htm

In February Pelosi said Iraq was a failure, after her surprise visit this week she says the following:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...osi-iraq_N.htm

What's up here? Is she changing her tone? Is it just political b.s.? Is she really "welcoming" of progress, "assured" and "hopeful" after meeting with Iraqi government officials?

Does anyone know how that compares to the general population? Didn't see that comparision in the article, though I admit I may have missed it.

It found that veterans were more than twice as likely to commit suicide in 2005 than non-vets. (Veterans committed suicide at the rate of between 18.7 to 20.8 per 100,000, compared to other Americans, who did so at the rate of 8.9 per 100,000.)

One age group stood out. Veterans aged 20 through 24, those who have served during the war on terror. They had the highest suicide rate among all veterans, estimated between two and four times higher than civilians the same age. (The suicide rate for non-veterans is 8.3 per 100,000, while the rate for veterans was found to be between 22.9 and 31.9 per 100,000.)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n3496471.shtml