If this is progress...

[maineman]

civilian casualties are rising and American casualties are rising.... is this really what you all had in mind when you contemplated a successful surge?

if so...what would have had to happen to civilian casualty rates and american casualty rates for you to have conidered the surge a failure?

 

[Annie]

civilian casualties are rising and American casualties are rising.... is this really what you all had in mind when you contemplated a successful surge?

if so...what would have had to happen to civilian casualty rates and american casualty rates for you to have conidered the surge a failure?

You asked for links about civilians, I do to you as well.

 

[maineman]

http://bp1.blogger.com/_2-oDfgGpQKg/RhpNuUQslVI/AAAAAAAAAVU/N0d9gi3WPds/s1600-h/Civ+cas+IV.jpg

from your link.....1600 in Febrary...over 1600 in March and over a thousand in April

 

[maineman]

from your link:

"Unfortunately, last month, al Qaeda successfully slaughtered many hundreds of Shiites, and that increase in violence offset the decrease in violence by the Mahdi Army, so overall civilian casualties in Iraq remained essentially unchanged. However, the fact that the Sunni insurgency is beginning to resist al Qaeda, and the fact that they have even implored Osama bin Laden to call off attacks against civilians by al Qaeda in Iraq could be highly significant. If the Mahdi Army continues to cooperate (and all signs suggest that they will despite the Tal Afar bombing) and if al Qaeda can be induced to stop slaughtering civilians, then the troop surge will be seen as a resounding success because civilian casualties will come way down."

"if 'ifs' and buts' were candy and nuts, what a merry christmas we would have

it says, that IF a bunch of shit happens, THEN the troop surge will be seen as a success..... but you are perfectly willing to just accept that it already is.

 

[Annie]

http://bp1.blogger.com/_2-oDfgGpQKg/RhpNuUQslVI/AAAAAAAAAVU/N0d9gi3WPds/s1600-h/Civ+cas+IV.jpg

from your link.....1600 in Febrary...over 1600 in March and over a thousand in April

What popped up here is not helping your cause.

 

[Annie]

from your link:

"Unfortunately, last month, al Qaeda successfully slaughtered many hundreds of Shiites, and that increase in violence offset the decrease in violence by the Mahdi Army, so overall civilian casualties in Iraq remained essentially unchanged. However, the fact that the Sunni insurgency is beginning to resist al Qaeda, and the fact that they have even implored Osama bin Laden to call off attacks against civilians by al Qaeda in Iraq could be highly significant. If the Mahdi Army continues to cooperate (and all signs suggest that they will despite the Tal Afar bombing) and if al Qaeda can be induced to stop slaughtering civilians, then the troop surge will be seen as a resounding success because civilian casualties will come way down."

"if 'ifs' and buts' were candy and nuts, what a merry christmas we would have

it says, that IF a bunch of shit happens, THEN the troop surge will be seen as a success..... but you are perfectly willing to just accept that it already is.

No I am not. I am willing to give a different stategy time, as the generals have asked.

 

[maineman]

what day is it today?

 

[maineman]

No I am not. I am willing to give a different stategy time, as the generals have asked.

how long will you give them?

how long will you give George Bush? As much time as he asks for?

 

[Annie]

how long will you give them?

how long will you give George Bush? As much time as he asks for?

Um, more than 2 months? How long would you give them?

 

[maineman]

Um, more than 2 months? How long would you give them?

until autumn.... and then, if civilians are dying at roughly the same rate, and Americans are dying at roughly the same rate, I would call the surge a failure. And demand that we leave Iraq to the Iraqis and quit spilling our blood for THEIR freedom.... let THEM earn it themselves. We should NOT have to spend a trillion dollars and suffer 26K dead and wounded Americans just to get Iraq to a place where the majority shiites can safely establish their theocracy, align themselves with Iran and not be any more of an ally of American than Saddam was.

 

[Annie]

until autumn.... and then, if civilians are dying at roughly the same rate, and Americans are dying at roughly the same rate, I would call the surge a failure. And demand that we leave Iraq to the Iraqis and quit spilling our blood for THEIR freedom.... let THEM earn it themselves. We should NOT have to spend a trillion dollars and suffer 26K dead and wounded Americans just to get Iraq to a place where the majority shiites can safely establish their theocracy, align themselves with Iran and not be any more of an ally of American than Saddam was.

Ok, that may or may not be reasonable, I really haven't a clue strategy wise how long it takes to evaluate a new strategy. What I don't understand is your posts, that seem like you've already ruled it a failure?

 

[red states rule]

Ok, that may or may not be reasonable, I really haven't a clue strategy wise how long it takes to evaluate a new strategy. What I don't understand is your posts, that seem like you've already ruled it a failure?

What Do Americans Think the Democrats Really Want in Iraq?
Thursday, January 18, 2007

By Brit Hume

Dems Hope for Failure?

The latest FOX News Opinion Dynamics poll indicates almost half of those surveyed believe Democrats want the president's plan for Iraq to fail.

48 percent said they believe Democrats are hoping for failure and a U.S. troop withdrawal in defeat. 32 percent said they believe Democrats want the president's plan to work.

The president's favorable rating was 38 percent in the latest poll — down five percent from October. But that was higher than the number for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who came in at 33 percent.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244739,00.html

 

[maineman]

Ok, that may or may not be reasonable, I really haven't a clue strategy wise how long it takes to evaluate a new strategy. What I don't understand is your posts, that seem like you've already ruled it a failure?

I believe that if it were really a new and effective strategy that was replacing an old and ineffective one, we would have seen more positive results by now. I believe that the American military cannot be as responsive and flexible as a bunch of lightly armed men who can basically live off the land and change and adapt their fighting techniques quicker than a large mechanized force of english speaking foreigners can.

And please note the very important distinction. One can be pessimistic about the chances for success of any given venture and still hope and pray for the success OF that venture. I certainly hope we do succeed.... but I am pessimistic about our chances for success. My pessimism is well founded on my own life experiences. My pessimism does NOT allow our enemies to snatch victory from what otherwise would have been the jaws of defeat. My pessimism fills me with great sorrow...because I strongly suspect that this " new strategy" will fail for much the same reason that the old strategy failed: that being that we are fighting in the middle of a civil war where both sides see us as targets... the situation is far too complex for the overly simplistic good versus evil black versus white either or construct in which it has been framed by our inept and incompetent president and his inherently corrupt and inept staff of politicos.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Ok, that may or may not be reasonable, I really haven't a clue strategy wise how long it takes to evaluate a new strategy. What I don't understand is your posts, that seem like you've already ruled it a failure?

The "Surge" was opposed, unanimously, by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The JCS was of the opinion that the "Surge" is just something the Bush administration glommed onto because it had no other real idea of what to do in Iraq. This sentiment was recently echoed by retired Marine General John Sheehan in turning down the position of "war czar" offered him by the Bush administration. He said, "...The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going..."

The "Surge" will fail because its really nothing but more of the same from the Bush administration...An utter lack of any cohesive, long-term strategy strategy for suppressing the insurgents and disentangling our troops from the civil war they are embroiled in. There was no strategy for what happened after the invasion, and we are now paying the price in blood and treasure for it.

<blockquote>At regular interagency meetings and in briefing President Bush last week, the Pentagon has warned that any short-term mission may only set up the United States for bigger problems when it ends. The service chiefs have warned that a short-term mission could give an enormous edge to virtually all the armed factions in Iraq -- including al-Qaeda's foreign fighters, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias -- without giving an enduring boost to the U.S military mission or to the Iraqi army, the officials said. - <a href=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/18/AR2006121801477_pf.html>The Washington Post</a>, 12/19/06</blockquote>

So much for listening to his generals.

 

[red states rule]

The "Surge" was opposed, unanimously, by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The JCS was of the opinion that the "Surge" is just something the Bush administration glommed onto because it had no other real idea of what to do in Iraq. This sentiment was recently echoed by retired Marine General John Sheehan in turning down the position of "war czar" offered him by the Bush administration. He said, "...The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going..."

The "Surge" will fail because its really nothing but more of the same from the Bush administration...An utter lack of any cohesive, long-term strategy strategy for suppressing the insurgents and disentangling our troops from the civil war they are embroiled in. There was no strategy for what happened after the invasion, and we are now paying the price in blood and treasure for it.

<blockquote>At regular interagency meetings and in briefing President Bush last week, the Pentagon has warned that any short-term mission may only set up the United States for bigger problems when it ends. The service chiefs have warned that a short-term mission could give an enormous edge to virtually all the armed factions in Iraq -- including al-Qaeda's foreign fighters, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias -- without giving an enduring boost to the U.S military mission or to the Iraqi army, the officials said. - <a href=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/18/AR2006121801477_pf.html>The Washington Post</a>, 12/19/06</blockquote>

So much for listening to his generals.

Keep up the good work. The voters do not want the US to lose in Iraq - as Dems are wanting to happen

Congress in down to 22&#37;. With the "Surrender At All Costs" bill Dems are pushing for, their numbers are LOWER then Pres Bush's

 

[maineman]

The "Surge" was opposed, unanimously, by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The JCS was of the opinion that the "Surge" is just something the Bush administration glommed onto because it had no other real idea of what to do in Iraq. This sentiment was recently echoed by retired Marine General John Sheehan in turning down the position of "war czar" offered him by the Bush administration. He said, "...The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going..."

The "Surge" will fail because its really nothing but more of the same from the Bush administration...An utter lack of any cohesive, long-term strategy strategy for suppressing the insurgents and disentangling our troops from the civil war they are embroiled in. There was no strategy for what happened after the invasion, and we are now paying the price in blood and treasure for it.

<blockquote>At regular interagency meetings and in briefing President Bush last week, the Pentagon has warned that any short-term mission may only set up the United States for bigger problems when it ends. The service chiefs have warned that a short-term mission could give an enormous edge to virtually all the armed factions in Iraq -- including al-Qaeda's foreign fighters, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias -- without giving an enduring boost to the U.S military mission or to the Iraqi army, the officials said. - <a href=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/18/AR2006121801477_pf.html>The Washington Post</a>, 12/19/06</blockquote>

So much for listening to his generals.

precisely. this "surge" seems to be headed for failure simply because we cannot be as flexible -or as unethical - as the factions fighting each other AND us. We put 21K troops in Baghdad and the bad guys just took their show on the road killing in towns outside of Baghdad....and we were unable to rapidly and flexibly respond to that moving and changing threat.... I certainly don't WANT America to lose this mess...but I am fairly certain we will.... I am fairly certain that, at the end of the day, when the dust has finally settled, Iraqi shiites will control Iraq, and will be much more closely aligned with their shiite brethren in Iran than they EVER will be to America.

The stupid pipedream of a multicultural jeffersonian democracy blossoming on the banks of the Euphrates and acting as America's greatest and best new friend in the region, marching arm and arm with us in the fight against islamic extremism was always moronic to those of us with more than a thrid grade understanding of the region. Nonetheless, a bunch of ill-informed over confident neocons got us into it anyway and now we will be reaping the whirlwind from their terrible mistake for generations to come.

 

[red states rule]

precisely. this "surge" seems to be headed for failure simply because we cannot be as flexible -or as unethical - as the factions fighting each other AND us. We put 21K troops in Baghdad and the bad guys just took their show on the road killing in towns outside of Baghdad....and we were unable to rapidly and flexibly respond to that moving and changing threat.... I certainly don't WANT America to lose this mess...but I am fairly certain we will.... I am fairly certain that, at the end of the day, when the dust has finally settled, Iraqi shiites will control Iraq, and will be much more closely aligned with their shiite brethren in Iran than they EVER will be to America.

The stupid pipedream of a multicultural jeffersonian democracy blossoming on the banks of the Euphrates and acting as America's greatest and best new friend in the region, marching arm and arm with us in the fight against islamic extremism was always moronic to those of us with more than a thrid grade understanding of the region. Nonetheless, a bunch of ill-informed over confident neocons got us into it anyway and now we will be reaping the whirlwind from their terrible mistake for generations to come.

Is this what liberals call supporting the troops?

 

[Annie]

precisely. this "surge" seems to be headed for failure simply because we cannot be as flexible -or as unethical - as the factions fighting each other AND us. We put 21K troops in Baghdad and the bad guys just took their show on the road killing in towns outside of Baghdad....and we were unable to rapidly and flexibly respond to that moving and changing threat.... I certainly don't WANT America to lose this mess...but I am fairly certain we will.... I am fairly certain that, at the end of the day, when the dust has finally settled, Iraqi shiites will control Iraq, and will be much more closely aligned with their shiite brethren in Iran than they EVER will be to America.

The stupid pipedream of a multicultural jeffersonian democracy blossoming on the banks of the Euphrates and acting as America's greatest and best new friend in the region, marching arm and arm with us in the fight against islamic extremism was always moronic to those of us with more than a thrid grade understanding of the region. Nonetheless, a bunch of ill-informed over confident neocons got us into it anyway and now we will be reaping the whirlwind from their terrible mistake for generations to come.

Again, you may or may not be correct in your analysis, but Bully and yourself seem to ignore anything positive going on there only looking for those things that reinforce your own developed points of view.

I had posted the ABC report on curfew and improvements:

http://news.yahoo.com/video/1806/pg:3

Then there was this earlier article, which again was just waived away.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040501453.html


There are plenty of first hand accounts, from both enlisted and commissioned officers, as well as Iraqis that there are improvements.

Yet one could get the feeling that many don't want to entertain the possibility.

 

[maineman]

Just because I do not make a career out of cutting and pasting every possible news story about every possible good thing that happens in Iraq every day does not mean that I am ignoring it. It seems to me that we have a situation where, on one hand, Iraqis with explosives strapped to them blow themselves up in marketplaces all over Iraq on any given day, and on the same day, one GI helps a kitten out of a tree and everyone on the right IGNORES the carnage and says, "Look at the warm and wonderful GI...SEE? Things ARE getting better!"

It is impossible to ignore the good news coming out of Iraq.... every last little scrid of it is sought out and found and cut and pasted on USMB by the conservatives here as PROOF that this surge is WORKING, DAMMIT! THe surge has caused a 60% decrease in American casualties.... we put 21THOUSAND more troops in ONE CITY and, because of that, people can stay out at night until 10PM instead of 8PM when they are then ordered off of the streets because it isn't safe.... WITH 21K MORE AMERICANS PATROLLING THE STRRETS.... and that is somehow PROOF that the SURGE is WOKING DAMMIT! This war IS being won, dammit...we are winning it.... we are.... really. and anyone who says otherwise is ignoring all those good things and concentrating on the piles of dead bodies..... how traitorous and treasonous and unamerican to ignore those sweet human interest stories and concentrate on the DEATH AND CARNAGE.

If America were to be engulfed in some sort of sectarian conflict, and we would have civilians dying violent deaths because of that conflict at a rate that matched Iraq's last year, America would lose over 600 THOUSAND civilians. And that wouldn't be a civil war???? And if we sent an overwhelming force of soldiers to ONE CITY and the violence diminished in that one city, while it continued at an increased pace everywhere else, would YOU think that was a strategy destined to succeed?

 

[Annie]

Just because I do not make a career out of cutting and pasting every possible news story about every possible good thing that happens in Iraq every day does not mean that I am ignoring it. It seems to me that we have a situation where, on one hand, Iraqis with explosives strapped to them blow themselves up in marketplaces all over Iraq on any given day, and on the same day, one GI helps a kitten out of a tree and everyone on the right IGNORES the carnage and says, "Look at the warm and wonderful GI...SEE? Things ARE getting better!"

It is impossible to ignore the good news coming out of Iraq.... every last little scrid of it is sought out and found and cut and pasted on USMB by the conservatives here as PROOF that this surge is WORKING, DAMMIT! THe surge has caused a 60% decrease in American casualties.... we put 21THOUSAND more troops in ONE CITY and, because of that, people can stay out at night until 10PM instead of 8PM when they are then ordered off of the streets because it isn't safe.... WITH 21K MORE AMERICANS PATROLLING THE STRRETS.... and that is somehow PROOF that the SURGE is WOKING DAMMIT! This war IS being won, dammit...we are winning it.... we are.... really. and anyone who says otherwise is ignoring all those good things and concentrating on the piles of dead bodies..... how traitorous and treasonous and unamerican to ignore those sweet human interest stories and concentrate on the DEATH AND CARNAGE.

If America were to be engulfed in some sort of sectarian conflict, and we would have civilians dying violent deaths because of that conflict at a rate that matched Iraq's last year, America would lose over 600 THOUSAND civilians. And that wouldn't be a civil war???? And if we sent an overwhelming force of soldiers to ONE CITY and the violence diminished in that one city, while it continued at an increased pace everywhere else, would YOU think that was a strategy destined to succeed?

And with that, you've lumped us into the 'all' category, extrapolating from the specific. That is a problem from both extremes.