The Surge is not Working
-
Civilian casualties have dropped by 50% from last month[^] to 840 as well. Or 30,000 if you believe the Lancet. How much of that is a direct result of the surge or Petreaus' doctrine and whether the trend will continue I wouldn't like to say, but there does seem to be some positive news from what was increasingly looking like a unresolvable disaster.
But how many times did we see this pattern: a temporary big improvement followed by a slow and steady degradation. Well, let's see: 1) Sadam's sons were killed. 2) Sadam himself is captured. 3) Mukhtada Al-Sadr first insurrection is calmed. 4) Falujah is retaken from the insurgents. 5) Al-Zarqawi is killed. 6) The first elections in Iraq. etc, etc,... Al of these were hailed as a sign that "things are improving now" only to be negated by the facts later.
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
-
But how many times did we see this pattern: a temporary big improvement followed by a slow and steady degradation. Well, let's see: 1) Sadam's sons were killed. 2) Sadam himself is captured. 3) Mukhtada Al-Sadr first insurrection is calmed. 4) Falujah is retaken from the insurgents. 5) Al-Zarqawi is killed. 6) The first elections in Iraq. etc, etc,... Al of these were hailed as a sign that "things are improving now" only to be negated by the facts later.
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
None of those yielded real results like the surge has.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
But how many times did we see this pattern: a temporary big improvement followed by a slow and steady degradation. Well, let's see: 1) Sadam's sons were killed. 2) Sadam himself is captured. 3) Mukhtada Al-Sadr first insurrection is calmed. 4) Falujah is retaken from the insurgents. 5) Al-Zarqawi is killed. 6) The first elections in Iraq. etc, etc,... Al of these were hailed as a sign that "things are improving now" only to be negated by the facts later.
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
Possibly, but most of those were more or less symbolic events. The tribal 'awakening' that is responsible for much of the reduction in violence was also largely unexpected and not related to the increase in troop numbers - the Marine garrison in Anbar thought the Mosques were calling for a Jihad on them, not Al Qaeda in Iraq. With so much potential for chaos in such a shattered country, and it being in the interest of Iraq and Syria to foment it things could easily deteriorate again.
-
Sixty-three U.S. military deaths were reported in September, the lowest monthly
toll since July 2006, according to U.S. forces and a preliminary count by The
Associated Press.I was initially skeptical of "the surge", but it appears that (as usual) the leftist, anti-American propagandists were wrong. Apparently "the surge" is having a measurable effect as the number of American casualties last month was rolled back to levels not seen for over a year (even further on a per-capita basis as there are now more soldiers). The question now is whether this trend can continue such that Iraq can become self-managed, we can get out of there and we can divert that money to more worthwhile causes like prosecuting all 3 million members of Moveon.org for treason.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
I'd always expect a surge like this to work. The obvious solution is to fill the country with soldiers, one for every man, women, and child. Since that's not practical, success will always be less than complete, but it doesn't really need to be. I'm curious how many troops would need to be there to stop insurgent bombings completely, or at least, enough to give the country time to establish some stability. I think once they have a workable political system installed that everyone can agree to, alot of the unrest will go away [unrest from the general populace and clans, I mean, not from the bombers; they have no interest in participating in the government, it seems]. That could simply be my incredible naivete' however..
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
-
Sixty-three U.S. military deaths were reported in September, the lowest monthly
toll since July 2006, according to U.S. forces and a preliminary count by The
Associated Press.I was initially skeptical of "the surge", but it appears that (as usual) the leftist, anti-American propagandists were wrong. Apparently "the surge" is having a measurable effect as the number of American casualties last month was rolled back to levels not seen for over a year (even further on a per-capita basis as there are now more soldiers). The question now is whether this trend can continue such that Iraq can become self-managed, we can get out of there and we can divert that money to more worthwhile causes like prosecuting all 3 million members of Moveon.org for treason.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
Red Stateler wrote:
worthwhile causes like prosecuting all 3 million members of Moveon.org for treason
How curious that a political position not coincidental with your own is 'treason'. :wtf:
Rob Manderson My bloghttp://robmanderson.blogspot.com[^]
-
Red Stateler wrote:
worthwhile causes like prosecuting all 3 million members of Moveon.org for treason
How curious that a political position not coincidental with your own is 'treason'. :wtf:
Rob Manderson My bloghttp://robmanderson.blogspot.com[^]
Rob Manderson wrote:
How curious that a political position not coincidental with your own is 'treason'.
"Political positions" do not include providing aid and comfort to the enemy.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
Sixty-three U.S. military deaths were reported in September, the lowest monthly
toll since July 2006, according to U.S. forces and a preliminary count by The
Associated Press.I was initially skeptical of "the surge", but it appears that (as usual) the leftist, anti-American propagandists were wrong. Apparently "the surge" is having a measurable effect as the number of American casualties last month was rolled back to levels not seen for over a year (even further on a per-capita basis as there are now more soldiers). The question now is whether this trend can continue such that Iraq can become self-managed, we can get out of there and we can divert that money to more worthwhile causes like prosecuting all 3 million members of Moveon.org for treason.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
Red Stateler wrote:
Sixty-three U.S. military deaths were reported in September, the lowest monthly toll since July 2006, according to U.S. forces and a preliminary count by TheAssociated Press.
The reason why you have to go back that far to get a lower figure is because in every prior month for 2007, the military casualties were higher than in 2006. Higher in January 2007 than January 2006, higher in February 2007 than February 2006, higher in March 2007 than March 2006...all the way through to August. Thus the case for progress rests on a single month in which the figures were better. One would have thought that the fiasco of the past 4 years might have taught people something about the dangers of cherry picking evidence. Alas, some peoople are just too stupid and too dishonest to mend their ways.
John Carson
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Sixty-three U.S. military deaths were reported in September, the lowest monthly toll since July 2006, according to U.S. forces and a preliminary count by TheAssociated Press.
The reason why you have to go back that far to get a lower figure is because in every prior month for 2007, the military casualties were higher than in 2006. Higher in January 2007 than January 2006, higher in February 2007 than February 2006, higher in March 2007 than March 2006...all the way through to August. Thus the case for progress rests on a single month in which the figures were better. One would have thought that the fiasco of the past 4 years might have taught people something about the dangers of cherry picking evidence. Alas, some peoople are just too stupid and too dishonest to mend their ways.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
The reason why you have to go back that far to get a lower figure is because in every prior month for 2007, the military casualties were higher than in 2006. Higher in January 2007 than January 2006, higher in February 2007 than February 2006, higher in March 2007 than March 2006...all the way through to August. Thus the case for progress rests on a single month in which the figures were better.
Yup. Clearly the insurgents (you know...Those guys you're rooting for) were making progress...Progress which was rolled back by the surge. The question is whether or not that progress is sustainable. Perhaps an even larger surge would push the insurgency into oblivion. Note that one criticism of Rumsfeld was that he did not initially commit enough troops to the battlefield. Maybe that mistake can be rectified.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
Sixty-three U.S. military deaths were reported in September, the lowest monthly
toll since July 2006, according to U.S. forces and a preliminary count by The
Associated Press.I was initially skeptical of "the surge", but it appears that (as usual) the leftist, anti-American propagandists were wrong. Apparently "the surge" is having a measurable effect as the number of American casualties last month was rolled back to levels not seen for over a year (even further on a per-capita basis as there are now more soldiers). The question now is whether this trend can continue such that Iraq can become self-managed, we can get out of there and we can divert that money to more worthwhile causes like prosecuting all 3 million members of Moveon.org for treason.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
Rob Manderson wrote:
How curious that a political position not coincidental with your own is 'treason'.
"Political positions" do not include providing aid and comfort to the enemy.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
Red Stateler wrote:
"Political positions" do not include providing aid and comfort to the enemy.
Phew, then I guess those at MoveOn, while a bit misguided, at least aren't traitors.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
-
INITCOMMONCONTROLSEX wrote:
You are trying as hard as you can to sound like Ann Coulter aren't you.
You are trying as hard as you can to sound like Corky aren't you.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
Red Stateler wrote:
"Political positions" do not include providing aid and comfort to the enemy.
Phew, then I guess those at MoveOn, while a bit misguided, at least aren't traitors.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
Patrick Sears wrote:
Phew, then I guess those at MoveOn, while a bit misguided, at least aren't traitors.
Sure they are. You don't think that the enemy found "General Betray-Us" to be comforting? And the fact that they paid for it constitutes "aid".
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
INITCOMMONCONTROLSEX wrote:
You are trying as hard as you can to sound like Ann Coulter aren't you.
You are trying as hard as you can to sound like Corky aren't you.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
Don't you know how to use Google, Kyle? I thought you were a 1337 h4x0r!
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
Phew, then I guess those at MoveOn, while a bit misguided, at least aren't traitors.
Sure they are. You don't think that the enemy found "General Betray-Us" to be comforting? And the fact that they paid for it constitutes "aid".
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
Red Stateler wrote:
You don't think that the enemy found "General Betray-Us" to be comforting? And the fact that they paid for it constitutes "aid".
I'll take these statements with the humor in which they must be meant :) I had direct contact with some of the MoveOn organizers when I was in college. It left me really not wanting to interact with them at all; they had a very extreme view of the world.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
-
Don't you know how to use Google, Kyle? I thought you were a 1337 h4x0r!
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
INITCOMMONCONTROLSEX wrote:
Or could it be that I don't care enough about what you write to google it?
And yet it would have taken less time for you to google "corky" than to respond with your question about who he was.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
INITCOMMONCONTROLSEX wrote:
Or could it be that I don't care enough about what you write to google it?
And yet it would have taken less time for you to google "corky" than to respond with your question about who he was.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
John Carson wrote:
The reason why you have to go back that far to get a lower figure is because in every prior month for 2007, the military casualties were higher than in 2006. Higher in January 2007 than January 2006, higher in February 2007 than February 2006, higher in March 2007 than March 2006...all the way through to August. Thus the case for progress rests on a single month in which the figures were better.
Yup. Clearly the insurgents (you know...Those guys you're rooting for) were making progress...Progress which was rolled back by the surge. The question is whether or not that progress is sustainable. Perhaps an even larger surge would push the insurgency into oblivion. Note that one criticism of Rumsfeld was that he did not initially commit enough troops to the battlefield. Maybe that mistake can be rectified.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
Red Stateler wrote:
Clearly the insurgents (you know...Those guys you're rooting for) were making progress...Progress which was rolled back by the surge.
You can't draw such a conclusion from one month's figures. You have learnt nothing from the last 4 years of failure.
Red Stateler wrote:
Note that one criticism of Rumsfeld was that he did not initially commit enough troops to the battlefield. Maybe that mistake can be rectified.
If you had a clue or had any chance of getting one, it might be worthwhile answering you on that point.
John Carson
-
INITCOMMONCONTROLSEX wrote:
You are trying as hard as you can to sound like Ann Coulter aren't you.
You are trying as hard as you can to sound like Corky aren't you.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
Red Stateler wrote:
Corky
The guy with down syndrome from Life Goes On? I loved that show!
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee