Did the Surge Work; and should Obama Admit it ???

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
^^Funny enough, the MSM is saying that it's unfair to Mcbush that Obama is getting more press time...

Which is hypocritical, considering that McBush has flip-flopped almost every single time (Obama does flop here and there, but not as consistently as Mr. McBush), yet they fail to report that, because the vintage excuse will be "Shit was taken out of context"..

I was about to raise this in another thread, but in light of your 'flip-flop' statement above, I have to ask: Should he have not, at least to a degree, flip-flopped again with respect to the 'Surge Issue'? That is, Obama is maintaining that the surge was wrong and, essentially, has had no effect.
  • Is that right ???

  • Should Obama have not given some credit to the surge ???

  • Isn't Obama's position contrary to the facts ???

QueEx
 

Overkill2k6

Star
Registered
Re: Who is lying?? "No Oil Spilled during Katrina" McBush & Co. or MMS?

I was about to raise this in another thread, but in light of your 'flip-flop' statement above, I have to ask: Should he have not, at least to a degree, flip-flopped again with respect to the 'Surge Issue'? That is, Obama is maintaining that the surge was wrong and, essentially, has had no effect.
  • Is that right ???

  • Should Obama have not given some credit to the surge ???

  • Isn't Obama's position contrary to the facts ???

QueEx


*apologies for going off topic a bit*

Well, O is doing what he has to do and playing the "game" to get in office, which I know has A LOT of headz pissed off (I can admit I was a little peeved also, but I understand he's in a pretty awkward position.)

About that supposed "surge", I think he should've been straight up about it; yet I know the media would be all over that shit, and crucify him for weeks (along with the rest of the gullible-ites). I can't front; I do hate it that Obama has to always be on the defensive; that shit can get annoying sometimes (Though it's really not is fault to begin with.)

Some of these people really need to be re-taught about the fucked up state we're in, because of this fucked up administration we call BUSH. It's a damn shame that instead of the media reporting KNOWLEDGEABLE shit to give people something to think about, they choose to report BULLSHIT to keep people in a zombified delusionatic state..

Which is why they (the media) refuse to give McBush any type of press; because they know damn well homeboy's got all sorts of skeletons in his closet, kitchen, bathroom, etc, etc; AND they know he's basically Bush Version 3. I don't know what to expect with Obama, but I'll take him over McBush..


*Back on topic*

To answer the original question as to who's lying, BOTH of 'em are..
 

VegasGuy

Star
OG Investor
Re: Who is lying?? "No Oil Spilled during Katrina" McBush & Co. or MMS?

I was about to raise this in another thread, but in light of your 'flip-flop' statement above, I have to ask: Should he have not, at least to a degree, flip-flopped again with respect to the 'Surge Issue'? That is, Obama is maintaining that the surge was wrong and, essentially, has had no effect.
  • Is that right ???

  • Should Obama have not given some credit to the surge ???

  • Isn't Obama's position contrary to the facts ???

QueEx

You didn't ask me QueEx but in my opinion this entire "surge" bullshit is just that... BULLSHIT! Prior to this infusion of troops into the war zone, the biggest issue of the day was the fact that Rumsfeld didn't send enough troops in to occupy Iraq in the first place. Rummy refused to cave on this issue stating they had enough and Bush backed him until the body bags started coming back by the hundreds. That put Rummy on the hot seat until his ass was eventually replaced. Then the talk went from, if we should send more to can we afford it, in the administration. The marketing then became, "the surge".

No question if enough troops occupied the country we'd dominate, but Bush needed to leave the impression that not only were we tough enough, but we could kick a "towel headed arab" in the ass with less than full strength of our arsenal.

When that shit didn't work, we simply sent in a full complement of what Colin Powell said we would need AND what the commanders were arguing with Rumsfeld about all along. You'll remember that bullshit if you think back.

Fuck a surge.

Its' just a marketing cover story for a massive fuck up from start to finish. Obama or his surrogates should get around to pointing that shit out.

-VG
 

nyyyyce

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Re: Who is lying?? "No Oil Spilled during Katrina" McBush & Co. or MMS?

You didn't ask me QueEx but in my opinion this entire "surge" bullshit is just that... BULLSHIT! Prior to this infusion of troops into the war zone, the biggest issue of the day was the fact that Rumsfeld didn't send enough troops in to occupy Iraq in the first place. Rummy refused to cave on this issue stating they had enough and Bush backed him until the body bags started coming back by the hundreds. That put Rummy on the hot seat until his ass was eventually replaced. Then the talk went from, if we should send more to can we afford it, in the administration. The marketing then became, "the surge".

No question if enough troops occupied the country we'd dominate, but Bush needed to leave the impression that not only were we tough enough, but we could kick a "towel headed arab" in the ass with less than full strength of our arsenal.

When that shit didn't work, we simply sent in a full complement of what Colin Powell said we would need AND what the commanders were arguing with Rumsfeld about all along. You'll remember that bullshit if you think back.

Fuck a surge.

Its' just a marketing cover story for a massive fuck up from start to finish. Obama or his surrogates should get around to pointing that shit out.

-VG
what you said^^^^.

more to the point, when we started PAYING the warlords and insurgents to stop shooting at us and to keep the peace - violence went down. we went in with too little troops to maintain peace and stability in the first place. the benchmarks have not all been met so this is still a colossal f-up.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: Who is lying?? "No Oil Spilled during Katrina" McBush & Co. or MMS?

You didn't ask me QueEx but in my opinion this entire "surge" bullshit is just that... BULLSHIT! Prior to this infusion of troops into the war zone, the biggest issue of the day was the fact that Rumsfeld didn't send enough troops in to occupy Iraq in the first place. Rummy refused to cave on this issue stating they had enough and Bush backed him until the body bags started coming back by the hundreds. That put Rummy on the hot seat until his ass was eventually replaced. Then the talk went from, if we should send more to can we afford it, in the administration. The marketing then became, "the surge".

No question if enough troops occupied the country we'd dominate, but Bush needed to leave the impression that not only were we tough enough, but we could kick a "towel headed arab" in the ass with less than full strength of our arsenal.

When that shit didn't work, we simply sent in a full complement of what Colin Powell said we would need AND what the commanders were arguing with Rumsfeld about all along. You'll remember that bullshit if you think back.

Fuck a surge.

Its' just a marketing cover story for a massive fuck up from start to finish. Obama or his surrogates should get around to pointing that shit out.

-VG

Oh I recall very well (1) Colin's and others realistic troop level assessment BEFORE the invasion; (2) the birth of the insurgency because the number of boots on the ground was probably insufficient to quell it; (3) the back and forth between the Administration, including Rumsfeld, and others over troop strength; (4) McCain's support for the surge; (5) Obama's opposition to the surge; (6) the surge; and (7) the sharp decline in violence since.

Now, questions that come to mind are: whether the surge is responsible for the decline in violence - or - whether there were OTHER factors that alone or in combination with the surge are responsible for that decline. If the surge is responsible for the decline in violence -- does it do Obama any good denying it ??? Personally, I think it does not work in his favor and may very well hurt him in the near future.

QueEx
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: Who is lying?? "No Oil Spilled during Katrina" McBush & Co. or MMS?



we went in with too little troops to maintain peace and stability in the first place. the benchmarks have not all been met so this is still a colossal f-up

Well, wouldn't it be logical to credit the surge with the decline in violence; but, point out how the surge has not accomplished its other goals and how important those goals are in the grand scheme of things ??? I'm having a major problem with seeing how not admitting the truth is a good thing. Help me.



more to the point, when we started PAYING the warlords and insurgents to stop shooting at us and to keep the peace - violence went down.

If that is really responsible for the decline in violence (and I certainly believe that it has contributed to the decline in violence), why not add that to the other failures of the surge - AFTER - you have first given, at least some credit to the surge.

I'll bet the damn farm that Obama will soon end up acknowledging the surge and adding in his points how it has not accomplished this or that, etc.

It simply makes no sense, to me at least, to deny what appears to be the obvious -- and allow McCain to hammer away in the meantime.

QueEx
 

African Herbsman

Star
Registered
Re: Who is lying?? "No Oil Spilled during Katrina" McBush & Co. or MMS?

I think the Iranians are responsible for the drop in violence. We all know they are pulling the strings of the Shia insurgency. The violence can increase when/if the Iranians want it to.
 

nyyyyce

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Re: Who is lying?? "No Oil Spilled during Katrina" McBush & Co. or MMS?

Well, wouldn't it be logical to credit the surge with the decline in violence; but, point out how the surge has not accomplished its other goals and how important those goals are in the grand scheme of things ??? I'm having a major problem with seeing how not admitting the truth is a good thing. Help me.



If that is really responsible for the decline in violence (and I certainly believe that it has contributed to the decline in violence), why not add that to the other failures of the surge - AFTER - you have first given, at least some credit to the surge.

I'll bet the damn farm that Obama will soon end up acknowledging the surge and adding in his points how it has not accomplished this or that, etc.

* If he did he would be a flip flopper and a complete @$$.

It simply makes no sense, to me at least, to deny what appears to be the obvious -- and allow McCain to hammer away in the meantime.

* McBush does not know sunni from shia nor that Czechoslovakia is not a country. he is inept and only gains an audience because the media refuses to take him to task about his gaffes and misstatements like they do obama. Barak has been right on Afghanistan, Pakistan and now communicating with iran (given all the evidence in the NIE downplaying Iran's nuclear capabilities). he needs to man up and stand on the judgment, EVIDENCE and conviction that has got him to this point. mcbush is a neo-con @$$ who has the support of the establishment - period.

QueEx
US bribe insurgents to fight Al-Qaeda
From The Sunday Times
September 9, 2007
Marie Colvin and Sarah Baxter

AMERICAN forces are paying Sunni insurgents hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash to switch sides and help them to defeat Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The tactic has boosted the efforts of American forces to restore some order to war-torn provinces around Baghdad in the run-up to a report by General David Petraeus, the US commander, to Congress tomorrow.

Petraeus will tell Congress that there has been great progress at a local level in Iraq following a surge in the number of troops this year, but little sign of political reconciliation.:hmm::hmm::hmm::hmm::hmm::hmm::hmm::hmm::hmm:

In a letter to US troops, the general wrote that “local Iraqi leaders are coming forward, opposing extremists and establishing provisional units of neighbourhood security volunteers”.
Iraq timeline: five years of conflict

From accusations that the weapons of mass destruction dossier had been sexed-up to withdrawal of British troops from Basra
Multimedia


The Sunday Times has witnessed at first hand the enormous sums of cash changing hands. One sheikh in a town south of Baghdad was given $38,000 (£19,000) and promised a further $189,000 over three months to drive Al-Qaeda fighters from a nearby camp.

Petraeus is to ask Congress tomorrow for more time to build political reconciliation. He is under pressure to bring home a brigade of about 4,000 troops, but has told President Bush that it will not be possible before January at the earliest.

Administration officials say Petraeus hopes to report to Congress again in March, buying six more months for the surge to work before troop rotations make it impossible to keep 160,000 US forces in Iraq without overstretch.

Bush is to lay out his vision for the future of Iraq in an address to the nation this week.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2413200.ece



-----------------------------------------------

The "surge", again, is a colossal failure and cover-up of faulty war planning to begin with. :hmm:
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: Who is lying?? "No Oil Spilled during Katrina" McBush & Co. or MMS?

I think the Iranians are responsible for the drop in violence. We all know they are pulling the strings of the Shia insurgency. The violence can increase when/if the Iranians want it to.
You could be right. But what can you point to that backs that up ???

QueEx
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: Who is lying?? "No Oil Spilled during Katrina" McBush & Co. or MMS?

QueEx said:
It simply makes no sense, to me at least, to deny what appears to be the obvious -- and allow McCain to hammer away in the meantime.

nyyyyce said:
McBush does not know sunni from shia nor that Czechoslovakia is not a country. he is inept and only gains an audience because the media refuses to take him to task about his gaffes and misstatements like they do obama. Barak has been right on Afghanistan, Pakistan and now communicating with iran (given all the evidence in the NIE downplaying Iran's nuclear capabilities). he needs to man up and stand on the judgment, EVIDENCE and conviction that has got him to this point. mcbush is a neo-con @$$ who has the support of the establishment - period.

You didn’t address the issue: whether it makes sense to deny what appears to be the obvious. Stay on point; that other yada, yada, has nothing to do with whether the surge is responsible, not responsible, partly responsible, or responsible with an explanation – – for the decline in violence in Iraq.

nyyyyce said:
US bribe insurgents to fight Al-Qaeda
So, the U.S. has offered the Sunni an incentive to fight Al Qaeda -- that means that they are doing what they should be doing: defending their country against another unwanted outsider. NO?

How does that prove or disprove that the surge is responsible, not responsible, partly responsible, or responsible with an explanation – – decline in violence in Iraq. If you answer yes to any one of these, then how can you simply deny, deny, deny that the surge has had any affect ???

I mean, blind men can’t see its pussy, but they know what it feels and smells like.

So, in all of that you’ve said, you haven’t shown one iota that the surge was a colossal failure.

Why can't we just admit the truth; or admit the truth and give a further explanation -- and move on ???

QueEx
 

14damoney

Rising Star
OG Investor
Outstanding thread and great input throughout. Just to add my two cents:

Why in the hell were we in Iraq in the first place? If we had never gone there, no surge would be needed there...
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Outstanding thread and great input throughout. Just to add my two cents:

Why in the hell were we in Iraq in the first place? If we had never gone there, no surge would be needed there...

Thank you for your input but I am certain you know that "in the first place" is completely irrelevant to the question posed: Did the surge have a positive effect in quieting the violence in Iraq?

QueEx
 

VegasGuy

Star
OG Investor
Re: Who is lying?? "No Oil Spilled during Katrina" McBush & Co. or MMS?

Oh I recall very well (1) Colin's and others realistic troop level assessment BEFORE the invasion; (2) the birth of the insurgency because the number of boots on the ground was probably insufficient to quell it; (3) the back and forth between the Administration, including Rumsfeld, and others over troop strength; (4) McCain's support for the surge; (5) Obama's opposition to the surge; (6) the surge; and (7) the sharp decline in violence since.

Now, questions that come to mind are: whether the surge is responsible for the decline in violence - or - whether there were OTHER factors that alone or in combination with the surge are responsible for that decline. If the surge is responsible for the decline in violence -- does it do Obama any good denying it ??? Personally, I think it does not work in his favor and may very well hurt him in the near future.

QueEx


It doesn't work in his favor to deny troop strength as a major factor but as I was saying and as you said, having enough boots on the ground to begin with was where all this stuff went wrong. As soon as the administration quit resisting the generals in the field, we could get a handle on things.

Let McBush have this but define it the way it should be defined.

-VG
 

14damoney

Rising Star
OG Investor
Thank you for your input but I am certain you know that "in the first place" is completely irrelevant to the question posed: Did the surge have a positive effect in quieting the violence in Iraq?

QueEx

Sigh... Ok, my Bad...

I don't believe it did. The U.S. was getting whipped like school boys immediately after the surge was in place. AL Quaida= "the database". The database formed by the CIA that kept track of all of the operatives contracted in the middle east during Iraq vs. Iran.

After Rumsfeld and others supplied training, money, and supplies. Al Quaida became autonomous... yet still controlled.

The war in and of itself serves several purposes (like decreasing military protection of the U.S. and wrecking the economy), but regarding this thread topic, since I believe it's all controlled, my humble opinion is that the resistance to the "occupiers" (as they call us) is also somewhat controlled by some hidden faction.

Chess on a grand scale. With one player(s), or group of entities playing both sides of the board... Until we are checkmated into NAFTA, or the American Union.

Which will join the European Union, African Union, and if they succeed, the Asian Union.

So basically, for some unknown reason I believe resistance was scaled back... Maybe it has something to do with the election here. Sorry I have no links right now. Time is starting to run short for me presently.
 

toyracer

International
International Member
I have to ask: Should he have not, at least to a degree, flip-flopped again with respect to the 'Surge Issue'? That is, Obama is maintaining that the surge was wrong and, essentially, has had no effect.
  • Is that right ???

  • Should Obama have not given some credit to the surge ???

  • Isn't Obama's position contrary to the facts ???

QueEx

The truth is that the Democratic Party has invested itself in "the Surge won't work" etc etc etc The examples of this are plentiful; every Democrat that could get in front of a microphone put down the plans for the Surge, the Surge itself, and for darn sure won't say a word about any success after the Surge.
 

ronmch20

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Surge worked?? Bullshit. What worked was paying those people big bucks not to kill us. Why the Dems don't say so is beyond me. :confused:
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
The truth is that the Democratic Party has invested itself in "the Surge won't work" etc etc etc The examples of this are plentiful; every Democrat that could get in front of a microphone put down the plans for the Surge, the Surge itself, and for darn sure won't say a word about any success after the Surge.
Exactly; a tactical error.

No one knew for sure whether the surge would or wouldn't, have the desired effect. Knowing that one reason for the insurgency was insufficient boots on the ground, one might reasonably deduce that adding boots might have positive effects.

While the entire Democratic Party did not buy into the "anti-surge", a significant portion appears to have done so. As a matter of tactics, many of the anti-surgists probably opposed the surge because they thought it was unlikely to change shit on the ground and to be sure, many didn't want it to succeed because, afterall, they didn't want it to look like G.W. was succeeding; therefore, when it failed as expected/hoped, they would use it as additional fodder for withdrawal and as fuel in the 2008 presidential election. But, they bet wrong. At least, in part, they bet wrong.

Just my opinion, but the Anti-Surgist Democrats having committed a tactical error, that is, betting the farm without a fall back or explanation if you bet wrong -- are now having a tough time admitting any success in the surge.

I'm still taking bets, however, that they (and Obama) will change tunes. And, for Obama, the sooner some concession and explanation on that issue, the better -- and move on.

QueEx
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Surge worked?? Bullshit. What worked was paying those people big bucks not to kill us. Why the Dems don't say so is beyond me. :confused:
But, at the time (before the surge), the fight was really Sunni vs. Shia. Of course, we were taking casualties from both but ultimately, the U.S. didn't pose a threat to the Sunni. The Shia and Al Qaeda did and does. The Shia because they are on a revenge trip for Saddam/Sunni privilege and Shia oppression; and Al Qaeda because their doctrines are opposed to the Shiites and they needed to convert their religious ally, the Sunni, to their view en route to establishing the Caliphate.

So, no question the Sunni Incentive Package helped reduce the violence by removing the Sunni as a Qaeda ally. Hence, it is probably an error to say that the surge, alone, is responsible for the reduction in violence. On the other hand, it is probably an error to deny that the surge had any part in reducing the violence.

QueEx
 

Overkill2k6

Star
Registered
Well, either way you look at it; the bottom line is that we didn't need to be in Iraq, no matter how you look at it (As stated)..

But this moronic cocktwizzler finally got his wish and killed Sadaam; After that, we should've been OUT of there..

This "surge" is a cover up for what's really at stake; OIL.
 
Last edited:

African Herbsman

Star
Registered
Re: Who is lying?? "No Oil Spilled during Katrina" McBush & Co. or MMS?

You could be right. But what can you point to that backs that up ???

QueEx


The administration/military has always said that Iran was responsible for the upsurge in violence in Iraq. If that is the case, then logic dictates that Iran may also be responsible for the waning violence.
 

VegasGuy

Star
OG Investor
Re: Who is lying?? "No Oil Spilled during Katrina" McBush & Co. or MMS?

The administration/military has always said that Iran was responsible for the upsurge in violence in Iraq. If that is the case, then logic dictates that Iran may also be responsible for the waning violence.

So your logic and your proof from the other post is based on something bush said? Care to elaborate?

-VG
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: Who is lying?? "No Oil Spilled during Katrina" McBush & Co. or MMS?

The administration/military has always said that Iran was responsible for the upsurge in violence in Iraq. If that is the case, then logic dictates that Iran may also be responsible for the waning violence.

Sorry. That reasoning violates the rule commonly known as the fallacy of cause and effect.

QueEx
 

African Herbsman

Star
Registered
Re: Who is lying?? "No Oil Spilled during Katrina" McBush & Co. or MMS?

We'll see how wrong I am once Iran is attacked and the violence in Iraq increases again.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: Who is lying?? "No Oil Spilled during Katrina" McBush & Co. or MMS?

We'll see how wrong I am once Iran is attacked and the violence in Iraq increases again.

Once again, its the fallacy of cause and effect.

That one thing happens does not mean, without
more, that another is its cause. You seem to
commit that fallacy, often.

QueEx
 

Blu Diablo

Promoter of Common Sense
BGOL Investor
The surge is not a failure but "reduction in violence" is a misused phrase. If you mean by reduction that we have more boots on the ground thus we are not getting OUR (US) ass kicked as much then yeah, you have a reduction in violence but that only makes practical sense.

If there were a true reduction in violence the administration would not be pushing to go after Iran because well, you'd have a reduction in violence.

So from the standpoint of adding more troops to save more troops yes the surge is a success and Barack should note that there are fewer US casualties.

That still does not negate the fact that this is an unjust, unnecessary war and we need to get the hell out of there but saying that is deemed as being non-supportive of our troops and our military.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
The surge is not a failure but "reduction in violence" is a misused phrase. If you mean by reduction that we have more boots on the ground thus we are not getting OUR (US) ass kicked as much then yeah, you have a reduction in violence but that only makes practical sense.
Violence against the U.S. was <u>not</u> the only violence in Iraq nor was it the <u>primary</u> violence, in Iraq. If you will recall, it was near civil war between the Shiites and Sunni and Al Qaeda elements. We took casualties, the most perhaps, since the push into Fallujah, but the Iraqis were killing each up each other at a far greater pace. No?

And, that "we were getting our ass kicked" is probably a misnomer as well, but, thats another thread.

If there were a true reduction in violence the administration would not be pushing to go after Iran because well, you'd have a reduction in violence.
Not necessarily. There is a difference, is it not, between cause of violence (Iran, our own fuck-up, etc.) and level of violence (how many people being killed during a particular time frame, no matter what caused the violence, i.e., was it Iranian inspired or was the violence inspired by our poor planning and management of the situation) ???

So from the standpoint of adding more troops to save more troops yes the surge is a success and Barack should note that there are fewer US casualties.

Was that the motive? I thought it was saving innocent civilians as well since it was they who were taking the brunt of the Shiite/Sunni assault.

The most important part is I agree you that Barack should have given some credit, however he reasonably defined the terms "some and credit".


That still does not negate the fact that this is an unjust, unnecessary war and we need to get the hell out of there but saying that is deemed as being non-supportive of our troops and our military.
You're right it doesn't mean the war is just and I, personally, don't take your words as being an affront to the men and women serving.

QueEx
 

Blu Diablo

Promoter of Common Sense
BGOL Investor
When I say that we were getting our asses kicked I speak simply of the fact that this administration underestimated the situation and caused us to take more losses than we should have had they sent the proper number of troops to begin with and (based on your point of view) directly or indirectly started or at least added fuel to the fire of the conflict between the Shiites and Sunni by removing Saddam.

We wanted to "liberate" but had no real plan in place and more or less found ourselves stuck in the middle of a situation in which we were never really wanted to begin with.

I'm not saying we should go all Monroe Doctrine but we have to be more judicious in our desire to be the world Democracy police.

As far as adding more troops to save more troops I firmly believe that to be the motive. Once the administration realized their fuck up and saw the Presidents popularity slipping then and only then did there seem to be a need the surge.

This was because there was no way our brave men and women could continue to take losses at that rate and the Bush administration go before the American people without answers or actions, whether or not Iraqi's saw less violence was kind of an added bonus.

Of course this is my personal opinion based on the facts presented to me, I am not claiming them to be 100% accurate but the level of coincidence is incredibly high. I am also one of those people that want them home safe and want them home now though thats probably not realistic given the climate of things in Afghanistan. (Seems we learned nothing from Russia being there)


Lastly, I'm not sure what branch you serve in or the capacity in which you serve but thank you for your commitment and service.(based on your tone it seems you in the military if I'm wrong then at least thanks for worthy debate)
 
Last edited:

kjxxxx

Star
Registered
QuEx, according to Obama the surge is a failure. So rather than thanking the military for the work they have done he put them down by saying that it was the tribal leaders that came together and decided that they were not going to put up with Al Qaeda anymore.

Obama needs to be careful with his anti Bush everything and refusing to accept ideas that are good because its not from the Democrat party camp. The election is his to take. McCain shouldn't have been polling so close if Obama would take good ideas and run with them regardless of which camp it came from.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
When I say that we were getting our asses kicked I speak simply of the fact that this administration underestimated the situation and caused us to take more losses than we should have had they sent the proper number of troops to begin with and (based on your point of view) directly or indirectly started or at least added fuel to the fire of the conflict between the Shiites and Sunni by removing Saddam.

We wanted to "liberate" but had no real plan in place and more or less found ourselves stuck in the middle of a situation in which we were never really wanted to begin with.

I'm not saying we should go all Monroe Doctrine but we have to be more judicious in our desire to be the world Democracy police.
I concur.

As far as adding more troops to save more troops I firmly believe that to be the motive. Once the administration realized their fuck up and saw the Presidents popularity slipping then and only then did there seem to be a need the surge.

This was because there was no way our brave men and women could continue to take losses at that rate and the Bush administration go before the American people without answers or actions, whether or not Iraqi's saw less violence was kind of an added bonus.
I wouldn't disagree with you at all that troops were added to save troops. I just think that there was added incentive because the Iraqis were taking such a beating that it became embarassing (1) that they were dying at such alarming rates; and (2) their deaths reflected badly upon our ability to manage, contain and control this war.

Of course this is my personal opinion based on the facts presented to me, I am not claiming them to be 100% accurate but the level of coincidence is incredibly high. I am also one of those people that want them home safe and want them home now though thats probably not realistic given the climate of things in Afghanistan. (Seems we learned nothing from Russia being there)
We agree again.

Lastly, I'm not sure what branch you serve in or the capacity in which you serve but thank you for your commitment and service.(based on your tone it seems you in the military if I'm wrong then at least thanks for worthy debate)
Thank you for the discussion.

QueEx
 
Last edited:

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor
The information in the article below has not been disseminated at all, in the “media of mass distraction”.

Paul Craig Roberts a former Reagan camarilla insider (Assistant Treasury Secretary) and a man who understands how today’s- Reich-Wing RepubliKlan gang operates exposed the bullshit about the “surge" months ago.

The fact that Iraq has more than 70 Billion dollars sitting in US banks, but - is not spending a dime of it on Iraq reconstruction was a one day story, on the “media of mass distraction”.

The fact that the “surge” strategy primarily consist of paying the justifiably disgruntled Sunnis, millions of dollars not to kill Americans, has not been reported, even for one day, in “media of mass distraction”.

The preferred narrative is that “we are winning” the <s>WAR</s> Occupation of Iraq.

The Bush-Cheney-McCain deception is that they know that the overwhelming majority of Americans will swallow the lie. Bush-Cheney-McCain know that the same duped low-information Americans will never utilize their brains to move one eye blink further in a logical progression.

If the surge is working, why can’t the troops come home?? ????

Obama with the assistance of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki who is being pressured by Sadr, is forcing clueless FAKE news propagandized Americans to think. Obama is forcing them to think & reject a 50-100 year occupation of Iraq with 50 permanent military bases with a cost to US taxpayers of 10 – 12 Billion dollars per month. Advantage Obama!!



<hr noshade color="#333333" size="6"></hr>

Paying Insurgents Not to Fight


by Paul Craig Roberts

February 19, 2008


<br><b>I</b>t is impossible to keep up with all the Bush regime's lies. There are simply too many. Among the recent crop, one of the biggest is that the "surge" is working.
<br>Launched last year, the "surge" was the extra 20,000-30,000 U.S. troops sent to Iraq. These few extra troops, Americans were told, would finally supply the necessary forces to pacify Iraq.
<br>This claim never made any sense. The extra troops didn't raise the total number of U.S. soldiers to more than one-third the number every expert has said is necessary in order to successfully occupy Iraq.
<span style="background-color: #FFFF00"><b><br>The real purpose of the "surge" was to hide another deception. <i>The Bush regime is paying Sunni insurgents $800,000 a day not to attack U.S. forces.</i></b></span>

That's right, 80,000 members of an "Awakening group," the "Sons of Iraq," a newly formed "U.S.-allied security force" consisting of Sunni insurgents, are being paid $10 a day each not to attack U.S. troops. Allegedly, the Sons of Iraq are now at work fighting al-Qaeda.
<br>This is a much cheaper way to fight a war. We can only wonder why Bush didn't figure it out sooner.
<br>The "surge" was also timed to take account of the near completion of neighborhood cleansing. Most of the violence in Iraq during the past five years has resulted from Sunnis and Shi'ites driving each other out of mixed neighborhoods. Had the two groups been capable of uniting against the U.S. troops, the U.S. would have been driven out of Iraq long ago. Instead, the Iraqis slaughtered each other and fought the Americans in their spare time.
<span style="background-color: #FFFF00"><b><br>In other words, the "surge" has had nothing to do with any decline in violence.
<br>With the Sunni insurgents now on Uncle Sam's payroll, with neighborhoods segregated, and with Sadr's militia standing down, it is unclear who is still responsible for ongoing violence other than U.S. troops themselves. Somebody must still be fighting, however, because the U.S. is still conducting air strikes and is still unable to tell friend from foe.</b></span>
<br>On Feb. 16, the <i>Los Angeles Times</i> reported that a U.S. air strike managed to kill nine Iraqi civilians and three Sons of Iraq.
<br>The Sunnis are abandoning their posts in protest, demanding an end to "errant" U.S. air strikes. Obviously, the Sunnis see an opportunity to increase their daily pay for not attacking Americans. Soon they will have consultants advising them how much they can demand in bribes before it pays the Americans to begin fighting the war under the old terms. If Sunnis are smart, they will split the gains.

Currently, the Sunnis are getting shafted. They are only collecting $800,000 of the $275,000,000 it costs the U.S. to fight the war for one day. That's only about three-tenths of one percent, too much of a one-sided deal for the Americans.
<br>If the Sunnis negotiate their cut to between one-quarter and one-half of the daily cost to the U.S. of the war, the Sunnis won’t need to share in the oil revenues, thus helping the three factions to get back together as a country.

Even 20 percent of the daily cost of the war would be a good deal for the Sunnis. A long-term contract in this range would be expensive for Uncle Sam, but a great deal cheaper than John McCain’s commitment to a 100-year Iraqi war.
<br>If Bush's war turns out to be as big a boon for the Sunnis as it has for Tony Blair, we might have a modern-day version of http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00009MEKJ/?tag=vp314-20
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00009MEKJ/?tag=vp314-20 – a movie about an impoverished country that attacked the U.S. in order to be defeated and receive foreign aid – only this time the money comes as a payoff for not fighting the occupiers.
<br>As the world now knows, Blair's "dodgy dossier" about the threat allegedly posed by Iraq was a contrivance that allowed Blair to put British troops at the service of Bush's aggression in the Middle East. Now that Blair is out of his prime minister job, he has been rewarded with millions of dollars in sinecures from financial firms such as JP Morgan and millions more in speaking engagements. As part of the payoff, the Bush Republicans have even put Mrs. Blair on the lucrative lecture circuit.
<br>Ask yourself, do you really think Blair knows enough high finance to be of any value as an adviser to JP Morgan, or enough about climate change to advise Zurich Financial on the subject? Do you really believe that after hearing all the vacuous speeches Blair has delivered in those many years in office anyone now wants to pay him huge fees to hear him give a speech? Even when it was free, people were sick of it.
<br>Blair is simply collecting his payoff for selling out his country and sending British troops to die for American hegemony.
<br>The Sunnis seem inclined to do the same thing if Bush will pay them enough.<br>Is the next phase of the Iraq war going to be a U.S.-Sunni alliance against
the Shi'ites?

http://antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=12385
[/color]

<hr noshade color="#0000FF" size="10"></hr>

ALSO READ

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's demand for a timetable for complete US military withdrawal from Iraq, confirmed Tuesday by his national security adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie, has signaled the almost certain defeat of the George W. Bush administration's aim of establishing a long-term military presence in the country......


Pullout Demand Signals Final Bush Defeat in Iraq


<hr noshade color="#0000FF" size="10"></hr>
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
QuEx, according to Obama the surge is a failure. So rather than thanking the military for the work they have done he put them down by saying that it was the tribal leaders that came together and decided that they were not going to put up with Al Qaeda anymore.

And you're saying (1) that was a put down; and (2) he was wrong? I'm not so sure, on either accord.

Criticism of military tactics do not necessarily mean or should be taken as "a put down." The "Sunni Awakening" was a major factor in quieting the violence. Some, as you will note in this thread, say it more basely: we paid them [the Sunni] not to kill us. I disagree that it was quite that simple, mainly because a major focus of the awakening was to get the Sunni's to see that Al Qaeda was merely using them to fight the Shia whom they hate and the U.S. whom, they hate (ironically, the U.S. was being shot at by the Shia, as well).

Obama needs to be careful with his anti Bush everything and refusing to accept ideas that are good because its not from the Democrat party camp.
I wouldn't disagree. But, there are those who complain that he is already 'accepting ideas' too many of which are not from the democratic party's camp.

The election is his to take. McCain shouldn't have been polling so close if Obama would take good ideas and run with them regardless of which camp it came from.
Thats a matter of perspective. Many would argue that Obama is taking good ideas, running with them and (as stated just above) many of those ideas are not from the Democratic party. Maybe McCain is polling so closely because, afterall, despite the prospects of a Black man becoming president, a Black man who many of us feel is as competent as the next guy running, its still America, my beloved country, with all her beloved contradictions, taking a giant but painful step, forward.

QueEx
 

nittie

Star
Registered
The surge was a failure because there was a surge. If the operation was done right in the first place it wouldn't be needed. The arguement that you can turn a failure of this magnitude into a success with additional troops, deaths and money, is irrational and not even worth debating. Obama is right to not admit it was a success but he's being bodied by McCain. The old man just wants him to react and when he does he will say Obama is inexperienced. These upcoming debates are going to be fierce, they will prove if Obama can go toe to toe with McCain.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="5"><center>McCain vs. Obama: Who’s Right on the Surge?</font size></center>

Newsweek Magazine
Larry Kaplow
Thursday, July 24, 2008

The U.S. military says there were zero attacks in Baghdad on Wednesday. A year ago, there were an average of 43 a day. The question of how this happened has led to the latest tussle in America's race for the White House.
McCain - Republican candidate and Iraq War supporter John McCain attributes the improvement to George W. Bush’s troop surge.

Obama - Democratic candidate and war opponent Barack Obama disagrees.​

Who’s right?

The answer is somewhere in between, with an edge to McCain but with Obama raising important points. If you think military force solves problems best, then you can attribute the success to the troop increase and, probably, it largely is. But if you tend to think politics and winning hearts and minds works best, you can point credibly to other factors that also reduced the bloodshed.

The timeline is rather simple:
  • On Jan. 10, 2007, President Bush ordered the troop increase, calling it the "surge" rather than by the more traditional term, "reinforcements."

  • Gen. David Petraeus, the main proponent of the more than 28,000 additional troops, took command on Feb. 10.

  • It then took until June 15 for all the five surge brigades to position themselves. Between February and June, the troops were amassing and already establishing many of the neighborhood combat outposts that were key in reducing the sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shiites.

  • Starting June 15, a 90-day surge plan kicked in with U.S. troops retaking areas that had fallen to chaos or control by militias and Al Qaeda.
    Violence rates, based on military graphics, dropped steeply from an anarchic peak of more than 1,500 attacks Iraq-wide per week in June 2007.​



McCain is right

McCain is right that the troop increase was important, perhaps the key when combined with their new tactics, in turning the country around.


Obama is right

But Obama is correct that other things were happening at the same time--and even before. There was a swing in attitudes among Iraqis against the violent overreaching by Al Qaeda and, on the other side, Shiite death squads claiming to fight for anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

Sunni tribes in the Anbar province, many of which had been fighting against U.S. forces, basically decided they hated Al Qaeda and its sadistic fanaticism more than they despised the American occupation. That happened in mid and late 2006.


The Sunni Change

In January of this year General Petraeus told NEWSWEEK about the genesis of the Sunni sea change, encapsulated in the story of Anbar's Sheik Abdul Sattar Abu Risha:

"Before I came back [to Iraq in February 2007] he had already gone to the brigade commander there, Col. Sean MacFarland ... and asked him if it would be OK to point his weapons at Al Qaeda instead of MacFarland's soldiers. And MacFarland, being no fool, said that would be OK and then parked two tanks outside his house. But it took them months to build some forces, to just get going ... March was when we started clearing Ramadi and we had it cleared by about mid-April and it was just a city in varying degrees of ruins."


McCain goes too far

This week, McCain took his argument one step too far when he noted that the surge began the tribal turn. He said: "Because of the surge, we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening." He also said he meant "surge" in a broad sense, more than just troop increases but also a new American approach to counterinsurgency. But there was never a public debate about helping Sunni tribes kill Al Qaeda. The controversy around the surge was all about the troop increase, which came after the Anbar revolution had started.

McCain is right that the surge did make more forces available to help the tribal fighters and "protect" the sheiks. But they had already turned. Alas, Abu Risha was killed by a car bomb in September. The movement lives on because the Anbar masses still want it to.


Shiite Changes

Another major turning point was Aug. 29, 2007, when Sadr imposed a ceasefire on his Mahdi Army (JAM) militias. This was during the height of the surge operations, many targeting Sadr's fighters, but appeared to also be influenced heavily by an ugly street battle during a religious pilgrimage between Sadrists forces and other Shiites. JAM was blamed, and Sadr's image was sullied among fellow Shiites.

And U.S. troops also employed canny manipulation and cajoling in street-level contacts with Sadrist leaders, encouraging and threatening them into setting aside violence. Petraeus might say this couldn't have happened without the extra soldiers on the ground, but we don't know for sure. (Petraeus deserves credit for allowing his commanders the leeway to engage the enemy with their mobile phones as much as their rifles.) Along those lines, there were other important doctrinal changes Petraeus brought with him. He made security for Iraqis the No. 1 priority, saying that it would ultimately also make U.S. troops safer--something long overdue. Soldiers came out from the city-size fortresses and lived in Iraqi streets.

Obama has said his early-2007 plan for a careful troop pullout could have also calmed Iraq. Most Iraqis would have said that a U.S. withdrawal then would have continued Iraq's horrible downward spiral. Probably. But the promise of a withdrawal might have won over some Iraqis. Combined with active diplomacy, it might have convinced neighboring countries that don't want a black hole next door to stop fanning the flames. It seems less than likely, but, as Obama says, it wasn't tried, still hasn't been tried and can't be ruled out. He also says the surge took resources and attention from more pressing battlefields in Afghanistan.


Iraqis say they deserve credit too

The troop increase was crucial in calming the country, but the tribal war against Al Qaeda and Sadr's--albeit wobbly--ceasefire were important, too. Many Iraqis, by the way, would say they deserve credit for lowering the violence by standing up against the gunmen and cooperating with American and Iraqi forces. All true to different degrees, depending on how much you believe in force or people power.

http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/...mccain-vs-obama-who-s-right-on-the-surge.aspx
 

Garifuna

Star
Registered
I was about to raise this in another thread, but in light of your 'flip-flop' statement above, I have to ask: Should he have not, at least to a degree, flip-flopped again with respect to the 'Surge Issue'? That is, Obama is maintaining that the surge was wrong and, essentially, has had no effect.
  • Is that right ???

  • Should Obama have not given some credit to the surge ???

  • Isn't Obama's position contrary to the facts ???

QueEx

Iraq Coalition Casualty Count


Code:
Military Deaths By Year/Month
Period 	  	US 	UK 	Other 	Total 	Days 	Avg
Total 		4124 	176 	138 	4438 	1955 	2.27
7-2008 		11 	0 	0 	11 	25 	0.44
6-2008 		29 	0 	2 	31 	30 	1.03
5-2008 		19 	0 	2 	21 	31 	0.68
4-2008 		52 	0 	0 	52 	30 	1.73
3-2008 		39 	1 	0 	40 	31 	1.29
2-2008 		29 	1 	0 	30 	29 	1.03
1-2008 		40 	0 	0 	40 	31 	1.29
12-2007 	23 	1 	1 	25 	31 	0.81
11-2007 	37 	2 	1 	40 	30 	1.33
10-2007 	38 	1 	1 	40 	31 	1.29
9-2007 		65 	2 	2 	69 	30 	2.3
8-2007 		84 	4 	0 	88 	31 	2.84
7-2007 		79 	8 	1 	88 	31 	2.84
6-2007 		101 	7 	0 	108 	30 	3.6
5-2007 		126 	3 	2 	131 	31 	4.23
4-2007 		104 	12 	1 	117 	30 	3.9
3-2007 		81 	1 	0 	82 	31 	2.65
2-2007 		81 	3 	1 	85 	28 	3.04
1-2007 		83 	3 	0 	86 	31 	2.77

Define Success, please!
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator

Iraq Coalition Casualty Count


Code:
Military Deaths By Year/Month
Period 	  	US 	UK 	Other 	Total 	Days 	Avg
Total 		4124 	176 	138 	4438 	1955 	2.27
7-2008 		11 	0 	0 	11 	25 	0.44
6-2008 		29 	0 	2 	31 	30 	1.03
5-2008 		19 	0 	2 	21 	31 	0.68
4-2008 		52 	0 	0 	52 	30 	1.73
3-2008 		39 	1 	0 	40 	31 	1.29
2-2008 		29 	1 	0 	30 	29 	1.03
1-2008 		40 	0 	0 	40 	31 	1.29
12-2007 	23 	1 	1 	25 	31 	0.81
11-2007 	37 	2 	1 	40 	30 	1.33
10-2007 	38 	1 	1 	40 	31 	1.29
9-2007 		65 	2 	2 	69 	30 	2.3
8-2007 		84 	4 	0 	88 	31 	2.84
7-2007 		79 	8 	1 	88 	31 	2.84
6-2007 		101 	7 	0 	108 	30 	3.6
5-2007 		126 	3 	2 	131 	31 	4.23
4-2007 		104 	12 	1 	117 	30 	3.9
3-2007 		81 	1 	0 	82 	31 	2.65
2-2007 		81 	3 	1 	85 	28 	3.04
1-2007 		83 	3 	0 	86 	31 	2.77

Define Success, please!

Post the Iraqi "civilian" casualty figures.

QueEx
 
Top