Pentagon: Iraq Surge Not Working
The Pentagon reported to Congress yesterday on the early results of the Iraq “Surge.” It was not encouraging.
AP’s Robert Burns:
Violence in Iraq, as measured by casualties among troops and civilians, has edged higher despite the U.S.-led security push in Baghdad, the Pentagon told Congress on Wednesday. In its required quarterly report on security, political and economic developments in Iraq, covering the February-May period, the Pentagon also raised questions about Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s ability to fulfill a pledge made in January to prohibit political interference in security operations and to allow no safe havens for sectarian militias.
[...]
Wednesday’s broader report, the eighth in a series, said that while violence fell in the capital and in Anbar province west of Baghdad during the February-May period, it increased in other areas, particularly in the outlying areas of Baghdad province and in Diyala province northeast of Baghdad and in the northern province of Nineva.
WaPo’s Ann Scott Tyson adds:
Iraq’s government, for its part, has proven “uneven” in delivering on its commitments under the strategy, the report said, stating that public pledges by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki have in many cases produced no concrete results. Iraqi leaders have made “little progress” on the overarching political goals that the stepped-up security operations are intended to help advance, the report said, calling reconciliation between Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni factions “a serious unfulfilled objective.” Indeed, “some analysts see a growing fragmentation of Iraq,” it said, noting that 36 percent of Iraqis believe “the Iraqi people would be better off if the country were divided into three or more separate countries.”
Worse:
Shiite militias, which have engaged in the widespread killing and sectarian removal of Sunni residents in Baghdad, now enjoy wide support in the capital, the report said. “In Baghdad, a majority of residents report that militias act in the best interests of the Iraqi people,” it said, while only 20 percent of respondents polled nationwide shared that view.
The piece links to this chart, produced by the DoD, showing the trend in Iraqi Violence:
Counterinsurgency is a slow process and expecting miracles from a small troop surge that has only been underway two months and is not yet fully in place is a bit much. Indeed, the surge is having the desired effects in Baghdad and Anbar, the places where we’re actually surging.
Still, as I noted yesterday in my discussion with the MNF-I political director, it doesn’t do much good to quell violence in a few spots if all that results in is a shift to softer targets. We simply lack the wherewithal to put a large concentration of troops everywhere and the training of a self-sufficient Iraqi security force has been disappointingly slow.
UPDATE: Matt Yglesias isn’t surprised.
All of Petraeus’ work on the subject of counterinsurgency, however, along with the things he himself was saying somewhat subtly, all pointed toward the conclusion that peace in Iraq required not a “surge” but political reconciliation between a sufficiently large set of Iraqi factions as to represent the overwhelming majority of Iraqis. The “surge” was, in some vague way, supposed to facilitate that, which it hasn’t, it was never a realistic method of securing the country on its own, which is why it hasn’t worked.
The “surge” was always part of the puzzle; it wasn’t supposed to solve everything by itself. War remains, as it has always been, a means of forcing people to make political concessions that they would not otherwise make voluntarily. Classic counterinsurgency doctrine requires securing large population centers, killing insurgents, and applying political pressure. All those things, and more, are happening.
Insurgents have the advantage in that they can kill indiscriminately and have the luxury of time. Beating them is incredibly difficult, especially for a foreign force, which is why it’s such a popular tactic. Further, John Robb may well be right that we are facing a new breed of guerrillas who are even harder to beat than traditional insurgents because they don’t seek to wield political power but merely to maintain a state of chaos.
UPDATE: Steve Benen points to pronouncements made by SECDEF Bob Gates at the start of the Surge that we’d see results “fairly quickly” and that “the effectiveness of the plan should be apparent within ‘a couple of months’ because by then it will be clear if new military operations will be carried out without Iraqi political interference.” Gates said the clock would start ticking in February and, even taking “couple” loosely, that deadline has surely passed.
Now, if the measure of “effectiveness” is “military operations [being] carried out without Iraqi political interference,” I’d say it has been quite successful. Al-Maliki has finally started to show that he’s serious about establishing security and seems to have taken the gloves off against even Shiite militias. Much progress, therefore, has been made by that measure.
In terms of actually weakening the insurgency, however, it’s hard to point to much evidence that it’s happening. There are signs that Al Qaeda in Iraq is losing allies but AQI has always been a very small part of the loose confederation of Anti-Coalition Forces.
UPDATE: The White House “Iraq Update” office has sent me a long email under the title, “The Rest Of The Story: Defense Department ’9010′ Report: ‘Too Early To Assess’ Impact Of New Security Strategy, Includes Reasons For Optimism.” There’s not much in it that wasn’t included in the detailed news accounts out there, including those linked above.
Three charts that accompanied the message, though, are worth passing on:
This is an interesting set of data, although it would be useful to know what counts as “sectarian murders” and why this trend is so different from “civilian deaths.” The latter would seemingly be the key metric.
I’m not sure this is particularly helpful to their cause. In addition to evoking the Vietnam-era “body counts,” it’s not clear what this indicates. Does it mean that terrorists are abandoning their weapons in fear? That there are so many caches out there that we can’t help but stumble on them? And wouldn’t we prefer to see these numbers going down? After four years, why so many caches?
This would certainly seem to be an indication that political cooperation and trust in Coalition forces is on the uptick. If so, that’s 2/3 of the battle. But it could also simply be an indication that there are more incidents to be reported.
Related Posts
- None Found
About James Joyner
[...] James Joyner writes: The “surge†was always part of the puzzle; it wasn’t supposed to solve everything by itself. War remains, as it has always been, a means of achieving people to make political concessions that they would not otherwise make voluntarily. Classic counterinsurgency doctrine requires securing large population centers, killing insurgents, and applying political pressure. All those things, and more, are happening. [...]
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
At the time of its announcement, it was widely accepted by those no longer under the toxic influence of the Bush admin, that the surge was nothing more than a way to keep the war going until Bush leaves office.
The sad spectacle of a great army man like Petraeus being reduced to a compromised mouth piece will continue through September when he reports that, while slow, the surge is making progress, allowing the wars architects and apologists to ignore all calls to reason.
And should a republican be elected president in 2009, the madness will continue.
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
Apparently I’m under the toxic influence since my question is, if we increase aggressive activities toward an enemy shouldn’t we expect higher casualties? Also, are casualties an accurate measure of success and failure? Was D-day a success or failure? There were an awful lot of casualties there.
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
James, once again you are letting your ideological blinders get the better of you.
The report indicated: “To date, operations in Bagdad indicate that the Iraqi government delivery on these commitments has been uneven..For example, there have been reports of political involvement by some leaders in tactical and operation decisions that bypass the standard chain of military command.”
Even the Pentagon spin-masters are less optimistic than your assessment.
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
Yes, only that wasn’t what the “surge” was for. The “surge” was meant to increase defenses and security, it didn’t contain any meaningful increase in our offensive activities.
If you added more armor to a tank, and found that under the same conditions, the same number of occupants in the tank were killed or injured, the armor isn’t working.
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
Steve,
I can see that you most definitely are still under the influence. The Bush line, and yours it seems, is that the more successful the surge the more casualties there will be, and as there is no clear mission here (in a D-Day sense- to move from the beaches of Normandy to the heart of Germany to crush the Nazi armies to come home) there can be no clear end, and with no end in sight the continuing deaths can be spun as continuing success and so see the Bush admin safely out of office without having to declare failure.
Thinking this screwy has got to be heady stuff, I understand, but it will rot your mind. Give it up Steve.
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
“Indeed, the surge is having the desired effects in Baghdad and Anbar, the places where we’re actually surging.”
Is the desired effect less violence or political reconciliation?
Because no matter what is happening with respect to localized violence in Baghdad, there appears to be ZERO progress on the political front.
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
Indeed, I would like to know what qualifies as “sectarian” for this graph. It’s entirely possible that Sunni attacks are classified as “terrorist” or “insurgent” rather than “sectarian” attacks by Shiites militia, or some other mechanism to make it sound like things are getting better, while really deaths are just moving from one category to another just like the violence is moving from one location to another.
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
Isn’t the Sectarian Murders the data set where they suddenly quit including car bomb victims at the start of the year?
I’m not sure. Can someone confirm or disprove this?
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
A few of you seem to misunderstand the point.
Casualties are not desired in a “surge” but can be expected. I understood the surge to be designed to rid certain problem areas of Al Qaeda and insurgent influences so rule of law could be established. Those types of offensive actions could and have resulted in higher casualties so why would we measure success by casualties?
If using logic and reason is evidence of being under the influence of the Bush Administration then I guess I am. Contrary opinions can be reasonable like it or not.
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
Hmmm…, it it’s not a true Scotsman, it’s crap.
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
[...] Debunkers News Links News from Iraq (Page 4) profile | register | preferences | faq | search UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! This topic is 4 pages long: 1 2 3 4 next newest topic | next oldest topic Author Topic: News from Iraq mal-3Member posted 12-15-2003 10:51 AM quote:Bush simply ran out of ideas in Afghanistan and morphed Ben Laden into Saddam Hussein and away we went.Yeah, that’s why Gore was literally begging Clinton to “take care of Saddam” before he left office so Gore wouldn’t have to when he took office. That’s why Clinton lobbied congress to pass a resolution in support of regime change in Iraq long before Bush ever took office. This was all Bush’s invention – no one wanted that sweet ol’ Saddam out of Iraq until Bush came along. mal-3IP: Logged green rileyMember posted 12-15-2003 06:07 PM President Bush said he would be wary of an interrogation of Saddam Hussein because he is likely to lie. (Duh?) Is there an imbedded reference to a conversation between a pot an a kettle in here somewhere?I see that Bush has once again tried to stitch 9-11 and Saddam Hussein together. As I recall, we bombed and invaded Afghanistan, looking for “terrorists” and Osama Bin Laden because he was thought to be the cause of 9-11. Which one is it?IP: Logged SPQRModerator posted 12-15-2003 06:48 PM quote:Originally posted by green riley:President Bush said he would be wary of an interrogation of Saddam Hussein because he is likely to lie. (Duh?) Is there an imbedded reference to a conversation between a pot an a kettle in here somewhere?I see that Bush has once again tried to stitch 9-11 and Saddam Hussein together. As I recall, we bombed and invaded Afghanistan, looking for “terrorists” and Osama Bin Laden because he was thought to be the cause of 9-11. Which one is it?You are still lying.IP: Logged green rileyMember posted 12-17-2003 07:27 PM What was the Administration smoking when they came up with the idea that Iraq could attack the US? http://www.floridatoday.com/!NEWSROOM/localstoryN1216NELSON.htm Cheney has been concerned that we could be attacked from the sea for years? Come on.BTW, where the Hell IS Cheney?This is just more evidence that Bush laid a foundation of lies to support his attack on Iraq.More lies from Bush to follow…IP: Logged SPQRModerator posted 12-17-2003 08:29 PM Again, Green, the only lies are from you.IP: Logged MalcosMember posted 12-17-2003 11:30 PM Interesting article, sounds quite flakey to me, but, what if such a briefing was given ? It would be interesting to know if one really was. If so, I’d have to say, that whoever gave it must have been smoking something strange, or be sooo deep into paranoid fantasy that next must be an attack on Lichtenstein for threatening the stability of the world banking system, or something like that.Then again, maybe Nelson was smoking something strange that day….MalcosIP: Logged GladimirMember posted 12-18-2003 03:40 AM quote:Originally posted by green riley:What was the Administration smoking when they came up with the idea that Iraq could attack the US?This is just more evidence that Bush laid a foundation of lies to support his attack on Iraq.More lies from Bush to follow…Evidence? If you’re referring to my previuos post about German involvement in Saddam Hussein’s biological and chemical weapons programs, then yes; that’s evidence. Regarding Senator Nelson’s comments, I’m only seeing evidence of not even one other person willing to corroborate his story. Democrat Senator Bob Graham, who voted against the Congressional war resolution, didn’t even bother to dignify the comments with a return phone call, and Representatives Dave Weldon and Tom Feeney were too professional to relate classified information, received in a classified briefing, to a corporate news agency.I’m going to give Senator Nelson a little slack on this one for his efforts to find out what happened to Michael Scott Spiecher, but I can’t accept his word on this just yet.[This message has been edited by Gladimir (edited 12-18-2003).]IP: Logged ToddMember posted 12-19-2003 10:08 AM Was it ever (dis)proven that Kuwait was or wasn’t slant drilling into Iraq back in 1990-1991?My googling skills failed me. I turned up some kooky websites but nothing ‘reputable’ (if such a thing exists on the ‘net).Edit: this question really has nothing to do w/ the current topic but it is sort of related so I asked it here.[This message has been edited by Todd (edited 12-19-2003).][This message has been edited by Todd (edited 12-19-2003).]IP: Logged GladimirMember posted 12-19-2003 12:39 PM quote:Originally posted by Todd:Was it ever (dis)proven that Kuwait was or wasn’t slant drilling into Iraq back in 1990-1991?Of course, Kuwait has denied charges, and each time they’re made; Kuwait suggests independent investigators confirm the matter.This is exactly why Iraq has no credibility. The Iraq-Kuwait border dispute goes back to at least 1932 and has been responsible for three invasions in the last 50 years. Nationalist Iraqi leaders have considered Kuwait to be the 19th Province of Iraq.In any event, Iraq repeatedly made these claims of slant drilling, the most recent accusation came in September of 2000. quote:CBS News: Iraq Accuses Kuwait Again 20 SEP 2003Iraq’s Oil Ministry officials claimed that Kuwait was stealing 300,000 barrels of oil per day through the practice of horizontal drilling. That much oil would be worth $3 billion over a year.An official Kuwaiti statement quoted Oil Minister Sheik Saud Nasser al-Sabah as saying his country would welcome independent experts to inspect its oil operations in the border area with Iraq “so that the falsity of the allegations by the Iraqi regime can be revealed.” Kuwait argues that it doesn’t have the equipment to drill horizontally; that its northern oil fields are too far from Iraq to permit it; and that its drilling near the border takes place under the watch of United Nations troops maintaining a buffer zone between the two countries.The whole fantasy of the evil Kuwaitis stealing poor Saddam’s oil is usually concocted to support the whole April Glaspie gave Saddam the green light invasion tripe.It should also be noted that during the 1993 Iraq-Kuwait demarcation negotiations at the United Nations, Iraq never mentioned these practices. The key issue was deep water access to the Gulf.IP: Logged Sam Mc KeeMember posted 12-19-2003 08:55 PM Howard Dean says that Saddam’s capture does us no good. It seems to me it’s having positive fallout already.IP: Logged GladimirMember posted 12-21-2003 12:09 AM quote:Originally posted by Sam Mc Kee:Howard Dean says that Saddam’s capture does us no good. It seems to me it’s having positive fallout already.Absolutely! I didn’t even vote for Bush in 2000, but I have to hand it to him; since 9/11, he’s presided over one of the most significant foreign policy reformations since Reagan took office… though I’m not really comparing him to Reagan. Anyway, here is a snippet from a London Telegraph report regarding the Libya WMD decision: quote:Telegraph: Revealed: the real reason for Gaddafi’s WMD surrender 21 DEC 2003Libya’s promise to surrender its weapons of mass destruction was forced by Britain and America’s seizure of physical evidence of Col Muammar Gaddafi’s illegal weapons programme, the Telegraph can reveal.The operation is said to have been carried out under the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), an international, American-led scheme to halt the spread of WMD by seizing them in transit. The PSI was first mooted by President George W Bush in May but was not officially launched until September.Imagine what could’ve been accomplished in Iraq had France, Germany, and Saddam Hussein’s lawyer, Ramsey Clark, not provided political aid, comfort, and reassurances that there would be no significant consequences for his continued belligerence.[This message has been edited by Gladimir (edited 12-21-2003).]IP: Logged ChaonModerator posted 05-30-2007 03:53 AM quote:Originally posted by Chaon: Lacking first-hand experience in pacifying a nation I have invaded, this is necessarily a less than expert guesstimate:At least 12 months into occupation, where there are two consecutive months of greater than 15 casualties for the occupying forces per month. That’s a quagmire. [QUOTE] Village Idiot:My idea of a quagmire is a situation where progress towards an objective is too slow or too costly to sustain the political will to continue the effort.Can we call it quagmire yet?IP: Logged tralfazMember posted 05-30-2007 06:45 AM Call it what you want. At least we’re all in agreement that we know with certainty that Hussein does not have WMD’s anymore.IP: Logged Jeff NormanModerator posted 05-30-2007 07:12 AM Quagmire quote:1. an area of miry or boggy ground whose surface yields under the tread; a bog. 2. a situation from which extrication is very difficult: a quagmire of financial indebtedness. 3. anything soft or flabby.<or>1. Land with a soft muddy surface. 2. A difficult or precarious situation; a predicament. <or>a soft wet area of low-lying land that sinks underfootI’ve bolded the definitions that I think are applicable.Why the “yet”? Surely it was a “quagmire” or a situation from which extrication was very difficult or a difficult or precarious situation right from the start.Did you have a different definition in mind?IP: Logged dave fitzMember posted 06-10-2007 11:01 PM My personal conviction is that it would be very easy to leave Iraq.Of course, later when the terrorists have nukes, we’ll have to burn the whole country to radioactive ash for all eternity, but I’m sure the “quagmire!” shouters won’t mind that. Heck, it’s not like they give a tinker’s cuss for the Iraqis now.*cleaned up for Bill Holt’s mom**GYOBFWs*DaveIP: Logged ChaonModerator posted 06-11-2007 05:00 AM I have my own blog, thank you. It is a delightful aesthetic masterpiece loved by millions. Go back and read the thread. Green Riley was right, and you were wrong. Score one for the libtards. IP: Logged jesshoMember posted 06-11-2007 08:32 AM quote:Why the “yet”? Surely it was a “quagmire” or a situation from which extrication was very difficult or a difficult or precarious situation right from the start.I agree. Considering the entrenched terrorists, ignorance, and lack of experienced military leadership on the front end, expecting anything but difficulties was, and is, unrealistic.Quagmires can be drained and made stable. Allowing adversity and difficulties to dictate policies of failure is a sign of weakness. Weakness, even only as a perception, gives enemies courage. IP: Logged Ted HalesMember posted 06-12-2007 12:08 PM Nice bit of Thread Necromancy.IP: Logged ChaonModerator posted 06-12-2007 11:09 PM quote:Originally posted by Ted Hales:Nice bit of Thread Necromancy.Well, we sure don’t get a lot of new threads about Iraq any more. I wonder why that is? We can play sophist with the word ‘quagmire’ all day. Fine. Can I call it an ‘unholy mess’? Or is calling it an unholy mess giving comfort to the enemy? “AHA! The enemy WANTS you to think Iraq is an unholy mess!”I hope the surge works. But how will I know if it is? The antiwars will say that it is failing, no matter what the evidence is. The prowars will say it’s working (also in disregard for the evidence), but that the media refuses to report it. I could try to quantify what I think qualifies as ‘working’- maybe at least 50% fewer attacks and casualties than same time last year? But nobody thought much of my attempt to quantify ‘quagmire’. IP: Logged barisaxMember posted 06-13-2007 11:47 AM quote:Originally posted by Chaon:But nobody thought much of my attempt to quantify ‘quagmire’. When I was a kid, my brother beat me resoundingly at scrabble with “quagmire” on a triple word score. I think it was worth over 50 points.IP: Logged Jeff NormanModerator posted 06-13-2007 01:23 PM Chaon,I saw the movie History Boys last week. While I don’t recommend the movie one of characters said something about the our inabiliy to have a good history of the recent past. I think it applies in this particular instance. While we seem to agree that there is a quagmire, we do not have the historical perspective that will allow us to judge if it was a mistake for the U.S. to go into the quagmire.All we have right now is opinion. My opinion was and is that it was not a mistake. This opinion is based upon my totally subjective understanding of how history works. I don’t really have a political stake in the argument from the left-wing/right-wing, liberal/conservative, blue state/red state POV. While it is tragic that people are dying I believe progress is being made, in the Kurd areas in particular and in some regions of Afganistan. Abandoning these successes would be a bigger mistake IMO.There is no way one can model what might have happened if we had not gone down this road.IP: Logged SPQRModerator posted 06-13-2007 06:00 PM I just spent two weeks in Europe including several days along the Normandy coast. Early in the trip, I visited the Ypres salient area and the cemetaries that date from WWI. Quagmire? There are over a 100 different Allied cemeteries in the area. It is believed that a half million died in just one 3 1/2 month campaign. For nearly 4 years the front lines moved no more than a few kilometers each direction. Tyne Cot Cemetery has a wall of names for whom no remains were ever found on the battlefield and it alone is 35 thousand names.Our losses to date in Iraq would not be a particularly bad afternoon in October or November 1917.While in France, several people who we conversed with wanted to tell me how terrible it was that the US was “oppressing” Iraq and how much they hated G.W. Bush. Amusingly, one young woman talking to us on a high speed train ride wanted to tell us that, but then told us that she voted for Sarkozy because he would “do something” about the muslim youth that were out of control in France’s cities. She related several stories of being threatened with assault in her own town for walking unveiled along the streets.But the real high point of our France visit was in Bayeux. I was there to visit the D-Day beaches and the American cemetary there. For those that don’t know the history, in the summer of ’44, the Normandy region suffered a lot from the initial invasion and the fight over Caen. Caen itself essentially was leveled by artillery and bombing in the fighting. My college roommate was born there and I’ve long ago heard stories of the hardship his parents endured.We were given a ride to the train station by a cab driver who told us that he still has fond memories of US and British veterans giving him candy as a young boy when they arrived for celebrations in later decades. And he told us of the fact that his parents would never hear anyone say anything bad about Americans in their presence, repeating stories of kindness and aid they had received as civilians in the war zone.Go read the reporting of people like Michael Yon – describing the interaction of Iraqi children with US and British soldiers. See the stories about Sunni tribes switching allegiance away from insurgency and fighting Al Queda. Regardless of the count of car bombs, the extended contact between our young people and the Iraqi people will have benefits. We sent our best there and I think it will pay dividends in the next generation.ADDED 6/14:I think its clear that the troops themselves believe that they are doing good work – from LA Times: quote: Marines continue to exceed their re-enlistment goals. A recent study showed that those who have deployed twice to Iraq are more likely to re-enlist than those who have gone once. The Marine least likely to re-enlist is one who has not deployed to Iraq. [This message has been edited by SPQR (edited 06-14-2007).]IP: Logged setnahktMember posted 06-13-2007 06:23 PM quote:Originally posted by SPQR:I just spent two weeks in Europe including several days along the Normandy coast. Early in the trip, I visited the Ypres salient area and the cemetaries that date from WWI…Wow. I am envious beyond words.I note many of my younger friends can be pretty contemptuous of the French and their relationship to the US. While I can’t say I’m a Francophile, anybody reading, much less seeing, the remnants of the Western Front has got to have some understanding of why the French might not want to get involved in another war.IP: Logged SPQRModerator posted 06-13-2007 08:21 PM quote:Originally posted by setnahkt: Wow. I am envious beyond words.The tour company that took me through the Flanders area. To see the concrete bunker that John MacCrea did surgery in, and wrote the poem next to a cemetery full of the young men he and his colleagues could not save, is very moving.If you show up at the RMBB, I’ll bring pictures. The Menin Gate in Ypres(Ieper) is very moving. Inscribed with the names of 55 thousand of those who are missing in action in the salient, every evening traffic is halted and Last Post is played.[This message has been edited by SPQR (edited 06-13-2007).]IP: Logged CasperMember posted 06-13-2007 11:53 PM quote:Originally posted by Chaon: Well, we sure don’t get a lot of new threads about Iraq any more. I wonder why that is?uhh, because there doesn’t seem to be much related to junk science on that subject? Just a guess. IP: Logged ChaonModerator posted 06-14-2007 02:08 AM quote:Originally posted by Casper: uhh, because there doesn’t seem to be much related to junk science on that subject? Just a guess. Yep, that must be it. IP: Logged SPQRModerator posted 06-14-2007 01:53 PM quote:Originally posted by Chaon: Yep, that must be it. Its why I don’t post here on the subject, Karl, as I do post a lot on the subject in other online forums of a more explicitly political and/or contemporary events character.IP: Logged Steve_VMember posted 06-14-2007 03:24 PM Pentagon Says Surge Not WorkingLots of information there, although Karl’s point about figuring out if it is working or not isn’t all that easy.——————Steve”In a nutshell, he [Steve] is 100% unadulterated evil. I do not believe in a “Satan”, but this man is as close to “the real McCoy” as they come.” –Jamey Lee West steve_v@steveverdon.com Deinonychus antirrhopusIP: Logged SPQRModerator posted 06-14-2007 05:38 PM Especially since the “surge” isn’t even at full deployment yet. That is a very misleading story. Which is the norm for news media coverage of Iraq now. The media is overtly cheering on the terrorists in Iraq and it got old a long time ago. This interview with an aide of Petreus is done by Austin Bay, an acquaintance of mine FYI.[This message has been edited by SPQR (edited 06-14-2007).]IP: LoggedThis topic is 4 pages long: 1 2 3 4 All times are ET (US)next newest topic | next oldest topic Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic [...]
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
Really? Because central Baghdad wasn’t exactly Al Qaeda central you know. The “surge” was meant to keep Shiite militias (specifically Sadr’s) from operating in the open so that the Malaki government could put on some show of authority, it was never an offensive against Al Qaeda. That is the main reason “sectarian” violence is down, but the overall violence has not.
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
On the plus side the Iraqi parliament has passed a binding resolution claiming for itself the say in whether the government asks the UN to renew the mandate under which coalition troops remain in Iraq when it comes up for renewal in December. Unless Maliki vetoes the bill – which would lead to even more violence – they essentially are going to ask the UN to lift it’s stamp of legitimacy for the occupation.
They claim they had the votes to do this last year when Maliki undercut them by going to the UN 10 days before they were scheduled to vote.
Sure they haven’t met any of our benchmarks, but at least they are grasping the reins of democracy and passing one of the few bills they can all agree on.
And democracy is what this was all about in the first place right?
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
The full surge hasn’t even been implemented yet. They haven’t moved all the troops into place, and won’t have it done for two to three weeks.
I guess we judge surges based on speculation, not full implementation now.
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
Surely thing will improve drastically as soon as the final few thousand troops show up. Because that’s what’re preventing the Iraqi government from reaching a political reconciliation between sects.
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
[...] I found stormy! June 15th, 2007 at 12:24 am [...]
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
OMG STORMY! COME BACK TO BALLOON JUICE WE LUV YOU!
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
[...] how’s that Troop Surge working? Pentagon: Iraq Surge Not Working Interesting. __________________ Do you expect me to talk? No Mr. Bond, I expect you to DIE! [...]
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0