[Obgrfbke]

There's still more than 35% unemployment. That's so incompetent it's hard to believe it's not intentional.

[Cuccuccaltefe]

Is bringing the civilian death toll down to 2006 levels considered a "success"? June 2006 = 870

June 2008 = 450

http://icasualties.org/oif/

While the level of success in reference to the benchmarks is up for debate, you blatant lie in the first line of your post means we should all disregard this thread until a serious poster opens a serious thread.

Oerdin

[constanyiskancho]

The ultimate point of the surge was not to produce a lower level of violence in Iraq. The point of the surge was to increase troop levels temporarily so that the Iraqis could get their house in order. The New Improved Stable Iraqi Government (now with a fresh lilac scent!) was supposed to have been standing on its own two feet by April.

So by that metric, the surge is not a success.

If we were to withdraw all the surge troops, and violence stayed at the level its at now, you could say that the surge accomplished something-- though that wouldn't be the same as "succeeding," and at any rate we can't know that yet

But right now, the only "success" associated with the surge is that it's successfully shown that everybody who criticized Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld back in 2003 for not sending in enough troops has been proven right.

[naturaherbal]

Originally posted by Ramo
In related news, our presence in Iraq has become so politically untenable that Maliki explicitly endorsed Obama's timetable for withdrawal. He was motivated by political reasons to do that. Elections might be held later this year, and it looks good to crack down on American presence in Iraq.

But right now, the only "success" associated with the surge is that it's successfully shown that everybody who criticized Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld back in 2003 for not sending in enough troops has been proven right. Wasn't that a bit obvious? Either you do it all the way or you don't... Isn't that one of the lessons of Vietnam? Military advisors postulated rather early on that to maintain a status-quo in Vietnam, a million troops would be required instead of the half million that were used instead at its peak moment. I sense a clear analogy today.

Americans are in general quite apt to going to war, but their quick war-weariness is equally charactaristic. Contrary to peoples who endure wars many times in their lives, Americans want a quick victory, after which they can all pat themselves on the back congratulating on how they showed those ragheads what US military power can do.

In that respect anti-war protestors are a bit counterproductive, because without them, more troops could might have been sent, and things might be settled quicker, but of course that's speculating. If a leader goes to war, he should at least have the guts to go all the way. There's no room for half-hearted projects, especially if you go all the way to mislead and deceive the entire world and, not to forget, your own citizens who still do the dying out there.

[TriamiCaw]

Originally posted by Traianvs


He was motivated by political reasons to do that. If you read closely, I wrote that in the sentence you quoted..

That was my point. Anti-American groups, particularly the Sadrists are gonna make out like bandits in the upcoming provincial elections, so Maliki is paying appropriate deference to the mood of his electorate.

[Uvgsgssu]

How is this a return to 2006 levels?

May-06 969
May-08 396

Patroklos 1 Oerdin 0.

[TessUnsonia]

Originally posted by Ramo


If you read closely, I wrote that in the sentence you quoted..

That was my point. Anti-American groups, particularly the Sadrists are gonna make out like bandits in the upcoming provincial elections, so Maliki is paying appropriate deference to the mood of his electorate. Ah yes


Originally posted by Theben


Less troops were sent b/c that's what Rumsfeld wanted, in oppositon to just about every general. If you think that rummy was listening to the anti-war crowd at all, I've got some subprime loans to offer you.
Why would Rumsfeld oppose sending more troops then? I might not know the ins and outs, but perhaps he and his cronies wanted to appease the pop by not going all-out in Iraq. There's a lot of people with no military insights who think airplane bombing will do most of the work and who want to limit the amount of troops deployed because they might die out there.

Of course he didn't 'listen' to the anti-war crowd, but I can imagine there would be more protest if more troops were sent. In Vietnam presidents constantly assured that they wouldn't escalate the war by sending more troops (although they did it anyway). Why else would you say and do such a thing if it weren't for public opinion concerns? Especially if you need broad support to engage in war, such as the one in Iraq.. Rumsfeld wanted to give the impression to the people it would be a quick and easy war, that the Americans would be out of there in no time. Funny thing is he probably began to believe that himself. I can't see any other reason why he would oppose sending more troops when all his generals thought otherwise.

[gugqgbyzlp]

Oerdin is running thin on material.

[cjOTw7ov]

First of all your own source doesn't back your numbers. They were from the homepage of the site and are in fact all Iraqi deaths, to include the ISF, so while unintentional on my part it shows that Iraqi deaths are in fact down in poth categories.

As to the meat of your waffling, others have adequately addressed it.

I imagine you meant ? Sarcasm

[Liabmeasez]

Violence had declined significantly, as well as it should have. Unfortunately, the US isn't willing to dramatically pull out troops, so the domestic rationale for the surge has failed. The political outlook is still up in the air. What will be very interesting to see is if the admin. had enough juice to pasuh through a status of forces agreement anywhere near the kind they were originally demanding. I have no doubt US troops will probably retain immunity, though not contractors, but the big questions not yet answered seem the status of control of Iraqi airspace and the ability of US forces to undertake combat operations with or without Iraqi approval.

[Seesspoxy]

Obviously the strategy was successful since folks are moving goalposts now.

[Theorsell]

The benchmarks were the strategy for the entire war. The surge was one step in the process, but not the only step.

The surge has been successful in what it could do, whether the benchmarks will or will not be fully achieved depends on other factors.

It's like saying "the surge won't butter my toast right"

"the surge won't do my homework for me."

Is the surge the new roomba?

[Dxwlxqvg]

In other words, finally taking control of their destiny? I's about ttime. The government wants it to be a phased withdeawl, as of today. People that say we've over-stayed our welcome, I beg to differ. Tell them we shouldn't have been there at all, don't tell me.

[Vapepreab]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The benchmarks were the strategy for the entire war. The surge was one step in the process, but not the only step.

The surge has been successful in what it could do, whether the benchmarks will or will not be fully achieved depends on other factors.

It's like saying "the surge won't butter my toast right"

"the surge won't do my homework for me."

Is the surge the new roomba? No, it's really not like whining that the surge won't butter your toast. The surge was intended to provide "breathing room" for political reconcilliation/cooperation. The idea was that if we provided better security, the Iraqis could calm down, cut some deals, and move forward.

It is unclear whether that goal, which is obviously political in nature (do we have to discuss von Clausewitz here?), has been/will be accomplished. I'm dubious.

-Arrian

[Dweplyododo]

Yeah. The Olympics hasn't started yet.

-Arrian

[HornyMolly]

Iraq sees hope of US troop withdrawal by 2010

By BRIAN MURPHY, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 25 minutes ago

BAGHDAD - Iraq's government welcomed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Monday with word that it apparently shares his hope that U.S. combat forces could leave by 2010.
Like I've said, for all the hand-wringing over our interference, the people being "interfered with" don't want us gone yet.

[invasuant]

The surge has done it's job. The Iraqis haven't stepped up to the plate yet.

Can't blame the surge for political failings.

[NeroASERCH]

The surge has done it's job. The Iraqis haven't stepped up to the plate yet.

Can't blame the surge for political failings.

The whole purpose of the surge was to facilitate political compromise. That makes it a failure thus far. Those of us who opposed the surge opposed it because we couldn't foresee political compromise, not because we thought that substantially increasing the troop presence couldn't possibly lead to a reduction in violence. Indeed, the only real surprise is that it took several months of horrific violence before a substantial reduction even occurred.

Some do, some don't. Or, more accurately:

Some want us out now.
Some want us out soon, but not quite yet.
Some want us to say for a few years.

I'm not aware of a group that really wants us to set up bases and stay indefinitely. And the vast majority of Iraqis are in camp one and two (some of the Kurds are in camp three, and that's about it). What's remarkable about Maliki explicitly joining camp two is that he's the prime beneficiary of the American presence. Yet, he endorsed Obama's plan because that's the most supportive he can be of American occupation while presiding over a system of government accountable to popular will.

[timgillmoreeztf]

You're original claim of 2006 levels is clearly wrong. The rate is less than half. Even if narrowed to the first half of 2006 you are wrong. Unless a decline of 30% on the original level is considered the same. Late 2005/early 2006 is the period (i.e. that just preceding the al-Askariyah Mosque bombing) that the past few months' violence most resembles. It looks like a ridiculous bout of nitpicking to criticize Oerdin over that comment.

[slarceSelia]

His comment was very specific, he compared 2006 to now (2008).

Jun-08 373
May-08 396
Apr-08 631
Mar-08 819
Feb-08 564
Jan-08 485

TOTAL = 3268

Jun-06 738
May-06 969
Apr-06 808
Mar-06 901
Feb-06 688
Jan-06 590

TOTAL = 4724

Which of the 06 months is lower than the 08? The only incredible feat is the lengths some will go to save Oerdin from himself.

BTW, for everyone who uses icasualties, do you guys know where they explain their methodology? I thought the excluded deaths not specifically linked with the conflict (crime), but I couldn't find it on their site.