No Wonder Libs Are Upset - The Surge Is Working

that's an incorrect statement. I would LOVE for the surge to work...I would LOVE for us to "win" this war. I think America would look good if we won and that is good for everyone who calls themselves an American.


But answer my question: Petraeus did say that the surge should be done by this summer, right?

That gives us like 4 months to close up shop and be home with months to spare before March 31, 2008.

The only reason Republicans would be opposed to a deadline is if they are lying about the surge working.

So, which is it Republicans? Is the surge not working or are you just making politics out of the deadline?
 
All a deadline accomplishes is to signal to the enemy when we will be gone.

Our objective should be to leave when the job is done.

I'm not surprised that you are a Clock Watcher. There are two kinds of people in the world: Those who commit to and do get the job done regardless of what time it is; and those who punch the time clock, and then sit around twiddling their thumbs until is it "Quittin' Time".
 
All a deadline accomplishes is to signal to the enemy when we will be gone.

Our objective should be to leave when the job is done.

I'm not surprised that you are a Clock Watcher. There are two kinds of people in the world: Those who commit to and do get the job done regardless of what time it is; and those who punch the time clock, and then sit around twiddling their thumbs until is it "Quittin' Time".


and no matter when we leave, we may think that the "job" will be "done", but the sunnis and the shiites will come out of the weeds and start killing one another again....

Does anyone REALLY believe that after centuries of hating one another, after 30 years of majority shiites getting stomped on by baathist sunnis, that some form of "coalition" government is going to make everyone want to have a big group hug? Does anyone think that, after we leave, the Iraqi army will not rapidly dissolve into two armed and equipped militias fighting one another? And will those of you who believe those fucking fairytales agree to give up your right to have anything to say about our foreign policy for at least a half a century when they are proven to be fictional?

all we accomplish by waiting is a bigger body count.....but pouring more dead Americans on top of the ones who have already bravely given their last full measure of devotion for a stupid inane counterproductive foreign policy debacle is what conservatives call "supporting the troops".
 
SHERMAN FREDERICK: Harry Reid's doublespeak

Hightailing it to victory?


Am I missing something, or is this just another example of political doublespeak?

The U.S. Senate passed a war-funding bill last week. According to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., this will "change the course in Iraq" by giving our troops "an effective, successful strategy for victory in Iraq." Why, just reading that you'd think that Sen. Reid is giving American soldiers a green light to kick some major butt in Baghdad.


You'd be wrong. What Harry is really saying is that "victory" means hightailing it out of Iraq.

Whoever taught Harry critical thinking skills back at Basic High School in the 1950s can't be happy. His creative writing teacher, however, must be ecstatic, because calling what the Senate did last week "an effective, successful strategy for victory in Iraq" is about as far from reality as one can get.

What the Senate did under the umbrella of a troop funding bill was vote for removing most forces from Iraq in 365 days. Think about that -- one year.

No one with an ounce of intellectual integrity can seriously call the Senate's action a blueprint for military success in Iraq. Arizona Sen. John McCain may not be my favorite political cup of tea, but he called it right on this one: "This bill should be named the Date Certain for Surrender Act. A second-year cadet at West Point could tell you that if you announce when the end will be, it's a recipe for defeat."

Now look, unlike Senate Democrats, I want to be clear and plainly understood about this. Americans can have at least two very legitimate points of view on U.S. involvement in Iraq. There are those who think we can create a better Middle East via a stable and democratic Iraq by supplying more troops, money and good old American resolve. And there are those who hold there is no military solution in Iraq, we ought to come to grips with that, cut our losses and get the hell out.

I happen to be in the "we-can-still-win" camp. And you won't catch me calling the "get-the-hell-out" folks cowards or un-American. But I will say I have increasingly little patience for politicians who try to have it both ways.

In that regard, Harry Reid's deliberately evasive position on Iraq wears extremely thin. When the war began, Harry was gung-ho and voted so. Even now, in hindsight, he says he was right to vote for the war. Yet, now that things have gotten tough, Harry (if I comprehend his doublespeak correctly) wants out.

That's fine. He's entitled to that view. But why not just say so?

Calling withdrawal an "effective, successful strategy for Iraq" is like Karl Rove calling for Sen. Hillary Clinton to bow out of the presidential race one year from now as an "effective, successful strategy" for Democrats to win the White House in 2008.

It makes no sense. Just in case you think I might be overstating things, here's the news release from Sen. Reid -- verbatim:

"Today was a significant step forward in our efforts to change course in Iraq and make America more secure. With this vote the Senate is giving our troops the resources they need in combat -- including a strategy in Iraq worthy of their sacrifices. It is my hope that with this vote now complete, Senate Republicans will not stand in the way of finishing this bill so that we may get these vital funds to our men and women as soon as possible.

"The president must change course, and this legislation gives him a chance to do that. It gives him the chance to more effectively fight terrorism and redeploy our troops from a civil war. This bill also gives the president the chance to address some of our country's most urgent needs -- long-ignored priorities including veterans health care; port, mass transit and airport security; and rebuilding the Gulf Coast.

"The American people have asked us to give our troops an effective, successful strategy for victory in Iraq. Both houses of Congress have listened. It is now up to the president to do the same."

OK, now that you've read his news release in its entirety and you know that I'm righteous on this, take a deep breath through your nose and read the following aloud in your best Robert Duval impersonation: "Thank you, Sen. Reid. I love the smell of horse apples in the morning."


http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2007/Apr-01-Sun-2007/opinion/13481820.html
 
if the surge is working so well, why was this week one of the deadliest in the war in terms of Iraqis?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17883992/

and we have lost 37% MORE more Americans in the last six months (530) than we did in the six months before that (386).

http://icasualties.org/oif/

if this is what it looks like when the surge IS working, can you imagine how bloody Iraq would be if it were not?


RSR...can you answer my questions? If the surge is working, why are we losing more Americans and why are there more Iraqis dying?

Don't cut and paste another oped piece.... just answer my questions with your own words.
 
RSR...can you answer my questions? If the surge is working, why are we losing more Americans and why are there more Iraqis dying?

Don't cut and paste another oped piece.... just answer my questions with your own words.
The terrorists know the more attacks they launch and the more people they kill - the more libs will want to complete their surrender at all costs agenda
 
The terrorists know the more attacks they launch and the more people they kill - the more libs will want to complete their surrender at all costs agenda

Can you answer my question? You have said that the surge is working. By what measure? More Iraqis are dying and more Americans are dying. What would those statistics be doing if the surge WEREN'T working?
 
Can you answer my question? You have said that the surge is working. By what measure? More Iraqis are dying and more Americans are dying. What would those statistics be doing if the surge WEREN'T working?

I did - try reading my previous post

I know you enjoy reading about the deaths of our troops and the civilians. You cannot wait for the US to be pull out and the terrorists take over Iraq - then watch the slaughter as it did in Viet Nam after the US left
 
I did - try reading my previous post

I know you enjoy reading about the deaths of our troops and the civilians. You cannot wait for the US to be pull out and the terrorists take over Iraq - then watch the slaughter as it did in Viet Nam after the US left

your previous post says:

"The terrorists know the more attacks they launch and the more people they kill - the more libs will want to complete their surrender at all costs agenda."

how does that answer my question in the least?

Here again is MY question:

You have said that the surge is working. By what measure? More Iraqis are dying and more Americans are dying. What would those statistics be doing if the surge WEREN'T working?
 
your previous post says:

"The terrorists know the more attacks they launch and the more people they kill - the more libs will want to complete their surrender at all costs agenda."

how does that answer my question in the least?

Here again is MY question:

You have said that the surge is working. By what measure? More Iraqis are dying and more Americans are dying. What would those statistics be doing if the surge WEREN'T working?

THE IRAQ SURGE:
WHY IT'S WORKING ...

By GORDON CUCULLU
Petraeus: "People realize they're not going to just leave them like we did in the past."March 20, 2007 -- 'I WALKED down the streets of Ramadi a few days ago, in a soft cap eating an ice cream with the mayor on one side of me and the police chief on the other, having a conversation." This simple act, Gen. David Petraeus told me, would have been "unthinkable" just a few months ago. "And nobody shot at us," he added.

Petraeus, the new commander managing the "surge" of troops in Iraq, will be the first to caution realism. "Sure we see improvements - major improvements," he said in our interview, "but we still have a long way to go."

What tactics are working? "We got down at the people level and are staying," he said flatly. "Once the people know we are going to be around, then all kinds of things start to happen."

More intelligence, for example. Where once tactical units were "scraping" for intelligence information, they now have "information overload," the general said. "After our guys are in the neighborhood for four or five days, the people realize they're not going to just leave them like we did in the past. Then they begin to come in with so much information on the enemy that we can't process it fast enough."

In intelligence work - the key to fighting irregular wars - commanders love excess.

And the tribal leaders in Sunni al Anbar Province, the general reports, "have had enough." Not only are the al Qaeda fighters causing civil disruption by fomenting sectarian violence and killing civilians, but on a more prosaic but practical side, al Qaeda is bad for business. "All of the sheiks up there are businessmen," Petraeus said. "They are entrepreneurial and involved in scores of different businesses. The presence of the foreign fighters is hitting them hard in the pocketbook and they are tired of it."

A large hospital project - meant to be one of the largest in the Sunni Triangle - had been put on hold by terrorist attacks when al Qaeda had control of the area. Now it's back on track. So are similar infrastructure projects.

The sheiks have seen that the al Qaeda delivers only violence and misery. They are throwing their lot in with the new government - for example, encouraging their young men to join the Iraqi police force and army. (They are responding in droves.)

Petraeus has his troops applying a similar formula in Baghdad's Sadr City: "We're clearing it neighborhood by neighborhood." Troops move in - mainly U.S. soldiers and Marines supported by Iraqi forces, although that ratio is reversed in some areas - and stay. They are not transiting back to large, remote bases but are now living with the people they have come to protect. The results, Petraeus says, have been "dramatic."

"We're using 'soft knock' clearing procedures and bringing the locals in on our side," he notes. By being in the neighborhoods, getting to know the people and winning their trust, the soldiers have allowed the people to turn against the al Qaeda terrorists, whom they fear and loathe. Petraeus says his goal is to pull al Qaeda out "by its roots, wherever it tries to take hold."

Another change: an emphasis on protecting of gathering places like mosques and marketplaces. "We initiated Operation Safe Markets," Petraeus said, "and have placed ordinary concrete highway barriers around the vulnerable targets." Car bombings have dropped precipitately - the limited access thwarts them.

As a result, "The marketplaces, including the book market that was targeted for an especially vicious attack, are rebuilding and doing great business. It is helping the local economy enormously to have this kind of protection in place." With jobs plentiful and demand growing, the appeal of militia armies declines proportionally.

Nor is the Iraqi government simply standing aside and allowing U.S. and Coalition forces to do their work. The Shia prime minister walked the Sunni streets of Ramadi recently, meeting and greeting the people - "acting like a politician," Petraeus said, without malice. "He is making the point with them that he intends to represent all sectors of Iraqi society, not just his sectarian roots."

Rules of engagement (ROE), highly criticized as being too restrictive and sometimes endangering our troops, have been "clarified." "There were unintended consequences with ROE for too long," Petraeus acknowledged. Because of what junior leaders perceived as too harsh punishment meted out to troops acting in the heat of battle, the ROE issued from the top commanders were second-guessed and made more restrictive by some on the ground. The end result was unnecessary - even harmful - restrictions placed on the troops in contact with the enemy.

"I've made two things clear," Petraeus emphasized: "My ROE may not be modified with supplemental guidance lower down. And I've written a letter to all Coalition forces saying 'your chain-of-command will stay with you.' I think that solved the issue."

Are the policies paying off? "King David" as Petraeus is known from his previous tour of duty up near the Syrian border, is cautiously optimistic. "Less than half the al Qaeda leaders who were in Baghdad when this [surge] campaign began are still in the city," he said. "They have fled or are being killed or captured. We are attriting them at a fearsome rate."

Virtually everyone who knows him says that David Petraeus is one of the brightest, most capable officers in today's Army. "He is the perfect person for the job," retired Major Gen. Paul Vallely noted.

Early signs are positive; early indicators say that we're winning. As Petraeus cautiously concluded, "We'll be able to evaluate the situation for sure by late summer." That's his job. Our job? We need to give him the time and space needed to win this war.

Gordon Cucullu is a retired U.S. Army officer and a member of Benador Associates. His book on Guantanamo is due out this fall.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/0320200..._____opedcolumnists_gordon_cucullu.htm?page=0
 
you are truly amazing. you are incapable of forming thoughts into sentences, aren't you?

How many times do I have to tell you that I have no desire to read oped pieces written by conservative journalists on this site.... I asked YOU a question...why can't YOU answer it?
 
you are truly amazing. you are incapable of forming thoughts into sentences, aren't you?

How many times do I have to tell you that I have no desire to read oped pieces written by conservative journalists on this site.... I asked YOU a question...why can't YOU answer it?

I knew that would be your reaction to a fellow military officer who has been to Iraq and walked the streets

You have the usual open mind I have come to expect from libs
 
I knew that would be your reaction to a fellow military officer who has been to Iraq and walked the streets

You have the usual open mind I have come to expect from libs


that is not my reaction to Colonel Cucullu...it is my reaction to YOU.

Why are you incapable of forming thoughts into sentences?

and why, if the surge really IS working are we losing more Iraqis civilians AND more Americans?

What would those statistics look like if the surge WEREN'T working?
 
that is not my reaction to Colonel Cucullu...it is my reaction to YOU.

Why are you incapable of forming thoughts into sentences?

and why, if the surge really IS working are we losing more Iraqis civilians AND more Americans?

What would those statistics look like if the surge WEREN'T working?

Oh, thats right - you hate to read anything that goes against your predetermined views on how things are

The last thing you really want to read is HOW the surge is WORKING
 
Oh, thats right - you hate to read anything that goes against your predetermined views on how things are

The last thing you really want to read is HOW the surge is WORKING

Please answer my questions...if the surge is working, how come we are losing mre Iraqi civilians and more Americans? What would those statistics look like if the surge WEREN'T working?

American casualties are up nearly 40% in the last six months versus the six months before that.
 
Please answer my questions...if the surge is working, how come we are losing mre Iraqi civilians and more Americans? What would those statistics look like if the surge WEREN'T working?

American casualties are up nearly 40% in the last six months versus the six months before that.

US Deaths in Iraq Down 60% Since Surge Began

And Democrats continue efforts to stop the surge.


BAGHDAD, March 14 (KUNA) -- The rate of killings of US troops in Iraq has been on the decline, down by 60 percent, since the launch of the new security measures in Baghdad, according to statistics revealed by the Multi-National Force -Iraq Combined Press Information Centre.
Suporting the troops means supporting the surge. Blocking the surge means the deaths of more Americans.

Meanwhile, when Matt Drudge posted the link above, he received death threats. It seems some "peace" activists are prepared to kill for their cause.


You might want to get updated talking points MM
 
I posted the link that shows the american casualty figures....yours are inaccurate...

In january, we lost 83 Americans.
In february, we lost 80 Americans
In march, we lost 81 Americans

and we have already lost 5 Americans today, the first of April

Please explain how you get a decrease of "60%" from those figures?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top