[mobbemeatiedy]

Unless he can prove beyond doubt that the surge had zero effect, the point is moot.

He also has to show a proximity between dates where the method was employed and the lowered violence, which would be very difficult.

I'm gonna guess and say that he doesn't say that's it's NOT the surge, but says that it's not ONLY the surge, and the whole thing is a new spin by Iraq critics.

[Itrtuawh]

I find it surprising that the burden of proof has been on whether the surge worked. There's clearly enough evidence that points to other factors that had an effect at reducing the violence. Take them away and what did the surge actually do (other than give the bushies something to point at and say "See that, I did that.").

[ReginaPerss]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

well i tend to see it as part of the same strategical move, but you're right.


I think these factors actually work really well togther.

If you increase intelligence without having enough forces for on ground target acquisition as well as patrol and security, then the intelligence is uesless.

I think it's a combinaiton of the 3 and you can't really seperate it and say that only one of them worked. But how much did the surge really do? Maybe it was completely unnecessary, as some claim. Just a little extra push that could have been more useful somewhere else. Too many people seem to think that it alone solved the problem.

[hrotedk]

I supported the surge but I cant say it worked yet, that depends on Iraqis getting their act together. If a civil war or dictatorship is what we find in 5 years, it failed.

[Peertantyb]

It's all tied together at the end of the day. On the one hand, it's never a bad thing to have more assets on the ground (tactically speaking, anyway). On the other, the surge probably would not have had a lot of success if not coupled with the "Anbar Awakening". Woodward's claim is a joke. We've long had the intelligence networks in place in Iraq to identify terrorist leaders, just like we've had the ability to track and kill/capture them. All killing one of them does is throw the movement off for a bit.

[Vokbeelllicky]

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
Woodward's claim is a joke. We've long had the intelligence networks in place in Iraq to identify terrorist leaders, just like we've had the ability to track and kill/capture them. All killing one of them does is throw the movement off for a bit. Maybe it's something more than just HUMINT networks, like that kickass cell-phone-using-see-through-walls-anywhere-anytime gizmo in the new Batman.

[CoenceLomneedtrue]

Originally posted by Grandpa Troll
Whos this Woodward fella?

Just another writer trying to make a name Um, investigative reporter for the Washington Post who (with Carl Bernstein) documented the Watergate break-in and cover-up by the Nixon administration. They co-wrote the definitive book on the topic, "All The President's Men."

Woodward-Bernstein are rightly credited by many with toppling Nixon from power and legitimizing/popularizing investigative journalism in the 70s. Woodward has remained quite active in the field over the years.

[ReneCM]

Yay. Another "you're unpatriotic and you don't support the troops because you think the war was a mistake" ad. Never gets old, I guess.

[Fausqueuego]

Surge is a terrible drink.

[ROYMANgo]

True, but what are you doing? Mind reading? Using an orbiting terrorist incinerator? Technological solutions have serious limitations in penetrating terrorist networks, particularly when the population is willing to hide them. The most plausible scenario remains that the Iraqis turned on the insurgency and the militias and started diming them out to US forces.

[PhilipBartew]

You do that. But the basic argument is still stupid, and the fact that it's coming from a wounded veteran doesn't make it any more valid.

[Inconykic]

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
You do that. But the basic argument is still stupid, and the fact that it's coming from a wounded veteran doesn't make it any more valid. The hell you say.

[chuecaloversvvp]

My bet is that it is tribal and religious leaders. Those leaders probably said, "Okay we will co-operate when you get the extra troops over here if you 1.) won't kill us, and 2.) kill our rivals" That could be true as well, but it doesn't, at least in my mind, constitute a 'new method of gathering intelligence'. I'm just kinda struggling to imagine what kind of new technique he could be talking about.

[Impariclainna]

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
That could be true as well, but it doesn't, at least in my mind, constitute a 'new method of gathering intelligence'. I'm just kinda struggling to imagine what kind of new technique he could be talking about. Maybe it's a special technique called actually reading the intelligence reports instead of relying on imagination to figure out who is tied to Al-Qaeda?

[jakitula]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
DaShi, just so we're clear, I would have withdrawn the troops the day after Hussein was hung. Ok? THIS soldier wants to give them a better life. I say they don't care enough to take the offer. The point of it is, we're sitting here with nothing to lose. Here's someone that did lose. Should we take a vote among the people that matter? The people that are there? Maybe that's a good idea; but like I said, I would have left Iraq to shitandfall back in it long ago. At least Viet Nam was consistent in what they asked. Iraq is bullshit, to me. So only soldiers matter. What a sad person you are.

[PypeDeft]

Wrong again. I would suppose you're used to that by now. I wanted Hussein taken for breaking a cease fire treaty. Papa Bush should have done it. Clinton, should have done it.

You can think what you want. We've gone over this 100 times.

[maxsobq]

I thought the reason that violence was decreasing in Iraq was that the US was paying off ( or promising to pay off ), the leaders of Sunni militia.

Before we pat ourselves on the back though, we should realise that back in August, while the eyes of the world were turned towards Beijing and Georgia, someone bombed 3 Shiite mosques and executed some Iraqi police. I wouldn't go around shouting "Mission Accomplished" about the quest for inter-ethnic peace in Iraq just yet.

I know what the new technique is - the US tried the radical ploy of actually paying off their stoolies.

[MidwestMadman]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
I don't expect Woodward to say what this method is. But then again, if he doesn't, what is the content of the book? Most of the book is like his other Bush at War books, about the behind the scenes political stuff. The interesting thing is the battle between the civilian government, who wanted the surge, and the Pentagon brass who really didn't think it'd work.

[tilmprarnerit]

They have been publishing excerpts from the book in the WaPo. Fascinating stuff.

Basically, Bush didn't follow the advice of his Secretary of Defense and commanders and developed a back channel to Petraeus, to whom he subsequently handed the reins. Part of that process was the surge. Bush demanded victory and he didn't feel like the group of military leaders in place was giving him victory.

The question is should Bush have skirted his commanders and subsequently put a new group of guys in charge? My views on this are well known, but I admit that this is a consequential question that is tough to answer.

[ThomasMannfanny]

re: The Book on WaPo. The excerpts are very fascinating and show the inner conflict. Would have been interesting to see what would have happened if the President listed to Gen. Casey and Gen. Abizaid and started pulling troops out instead of putting more in.