The Surge is Working?

Right on. The lies and the waste make me sick. And I agree, they don't care about following us here, they just want us to get our nasty-ass jackboots out of THERE.

The surge is working my eye!

I still see lots of our brave troops dieing along with Iraqi civilians, and we are still working on permanent bases there! Our government plans on being there a very long time!

The surge...pop-pop...fizz-fizz.

Well, the surge has worked better than what we were doing before. We have made substantial progress in bringing peace to al-Anbar and other provinces. We have actually be able to hand more control over to Iraqi's in many areas because they have become more stable. The Surge may not have worked as well as many of us may have hoped, but it is in no way a failure.

Yes, that 50% drop in attacks doesn't mean anything. The idea of the surge was to bring more security, as without security the political situation could not be stabilized. Now the attacks are down, the political situation has a chance of improving, morale is up, they have a commander they really believe in in Gen Patreaus. But let's forget all that.

It's funny, but more troops used to be the mantra of the left, now when they send more troops, we need to run as fast as possible. It's all about the victory of your AGENDA. You'd have crawled in bed with Hitler if there were a Republican in the White House and oh, don't mind that smell, it's just dinner burning a little. I know, someone's going to scream about that one, but think of THIS, they've pulled over 200,000 bodies out of mass graves, Saddam used nerve agents on HIS OWN PEOPLE and yet the "enlightened" left defended him.

Ty and Mark: We have always had the capacity to do what this so-called surge is accomplishing. It's a military solution in a situation where a political solution is required. Working is a relative term. People are still dying enmass all over the place.

What you are being so careful to ignore is the reason for the surge in the first place. Mr. Bush clearly stated that the surge was being tried at this late date (it should have been done with massive numbers of troops three or four years ago) to give the al-Maliki government some stability so that they could have breathing room to make the hard political decisions that are absolutely necessary in order for real peace or stability to have a chance in that country. Rather than use it for that purpose they decided to take a vacation after having accomplished absolutely nothing by both their measure and that of the White House.

Are you not outraged that our troops are dying to give them a chance to do something right and they prefer sipping tea by the pool and kissing ass in Iran.

Mark: I seldom say something like this, but I'll make an exception in your case. You're ridiculous. First of all, I am not on the left. I have political opinions all over the spectrum and am probably more hard line right on subjects such as immigration than you are.

Second, if you pull Hitler into any discussion, you have admitted you have no argument and are so desperate that you resort to ridiculous straw man arguments. The left has NEVER defended Saddam or his actions. What they said is that he was no threat to the UNITED STATES, had no weapons of mass destruction, was not sheltering al-Qaeda, and that there was no reason to invade Iraq and destabilize the entire Middle East for a personal vendetta of our president and a handout and payback to his oil buddies. Heck, Mark, the United States supported Saddam as they did bin-Laden in Afghanistan when it suited us to do so.

Also, you're dead wrong about this being about there being a Republican in the White House. It's about there being George Bush in the White House. A man whose mistakes are becoming legend, and whose incompetence and ignorance will be used as a guideline and a definition of those terms for generations.

I would hardly call Republicans left wing, yet many of them are also walking away from Mr. Bush because of his incompetence. So you're wrong. Dead and absolutely wrong. Going into Iraq never had anything to do with Saddam's behavior toward his own people, and I've never heard anyone anywhere define what he did as anything but an atrocity.

Now back to the subject of this article. The surge was supposed to give the Iraqi government time to deal with the difficult political issues in that country because all but the most knee-jerk (and I emphasize the last word) head-in-the-sand political extremists believe that the war there can be won without a political solution. Mr. Bush assured us they would make progress. Mr. al-Maliki went further and not only assured us they would make progress, but stated flatly they would complete the benchmarks. Now our troops die and they have done absolutely nothing according to Mr. Bush and the military leaders on the ground there. Care to address that?

Carolyn just how long has the "surge" been fully implimented? Not very long. I remember prior to the surge many many Dems crying that Bush refused to add more troops well he did that and then the cries just switched to "just get us out". So I agree with parts of Marks statement in that the speeches all seem to flow upstream from where ever this administration is going. It's all politics.

Yea nobody say's that what Saddam did wasn't an atrocity, but there seems to be the mind set that we should have left him in power because he maintained control. Yes he did but look at how he did it.

I just got through reading the book Sabotage . It's a sad book about the CIA and it's role in attacking the president and his administration . If only half of the book is true then we're screwed. It's scary that politics and turf wars take priority over protecting us.

Charles: you miss the point. First of all, we're not the world's policeman and there are a lot of dictators out there, many of whom we supported for years, who are as bad or worse than Saddam was. That's simply a no-started. The United States doesn't just invade countries and overthrow governments like that.

I'll take a look for the book you mentioned. I am going to the book store today anyway.

The point isn't whether or not the surge is "working". This so-called "surge" had nothing to do with military victories according to Mr. Bush other than to provide breathing room for the Iraqi government to do the hard work necessary to rewrite the government, find a way to begin the process of reconciliation among the various waring factions in the civil war over there, and to design a way to share oil revenues. Maybe you are smarter than I am, but how exactly do they do that while they are on vacation and many are not even in the country?

A definition of "success" for the surge is not and never was merely some small amount of security on the ground. That was merely the stepping off point for the political solution. Can you honestly say that on Sept. 15 you expect to hear that the al-Maliki government met or made appreciable progress toward those benchmarks they agreed to? Mr. Bush says they have not even started. The military leaders on the ground say they have not even started.

The surge, according to Mr. Bush, will be successful if the Iraqi government makes progress toward a political solution. Other than a few nutjobs on the far right, nobody in their right mind believes that a victory in Iraq can be achieved without political progress on the vital issues they are currently ignoring so they can sip tea by the pool. How exactly does one make progress toward a political goal if those charged with making the decisions are not meeting and are not even in the country in many cases?

Excellent article, Carolyn, and terrific points made. The surge was an absurd failure before it even began. Everybody that knew anything about the military and military adventures knew that we needed 500,000-600,000 troops in Iraq, in order to create stability and allow a new government to take hold. An additional 20,000 soldiers does nothing but create more target opportunities, as we've seen. The first months of this idiotic "surge" brought us the highest American death totals of this republiCON debacle. Additionally, the Iraqi citizens are dying at the same rate as they were before. Great progress.

Meanwhile, the Sunnis are bailing out of the sham of a government, and virtually zero progress has been made towards the bogus government becoming real. By the measure that our failed president laid out as justification for the "surge," it is an epic failure, just as everything else that he's touched is.

As for tossing out the "Saddam was a big meanie" nonsense as justification for our illegal invasion, once again, I will remind the delusional bubble people that he was the neocon's best pal during the period in which he was committing his most egregious atrocities. Anyone with even the tiniest shred of credibility has stopped using this utter nonsense long ago.

The harsh, ugly fact is, there simply was no valid justification for invading and occupying Iraq. Period. He had no WMD, he had no WMD programs, he had no WMD programs-related activites, and, on any given day, there were at least 20 other dictators in the world who're at least as brutal as Saddam ever was.

The ONLY reason why we're in Iraq is the reason that the PNAC neocons laid out in 1998. They have lots and lots of oil, and we want to control it. We want Iraq's oil, and we want to use Iraq as a permanent launching pad to invade and occupy other middle eastern nations, so that we can control THEIR oil, too.

It's time to wake up, people. Stop ignoring the obvious. This had absolutely NOTHING to do with 9/11 or terrorism, NOTHING to do with a perceived threat posed by a nation with virtually no military capability, and EVERYTHING to do with empire building.

Frankly, I find it rather insulting and offensive that, this far out, with as much FACTUAL information that has been broadcast and published since the illegal invasion, there are still people out there preaching complete nonsense. You people need to start dealing with reality.

I knew that the "right" would be making excuses when it came time to start assessing the "success" of the failed surge policy. It was pretty obvious, actually, since these are the people who're still pretending that we're supposed to be in Iraq in the first place. It didn't take a genius to compare the numbers that the military experts called for in order to have real success to the measly 20,000 soldier "surge" and see that it was destined to be an abysmal failure. From there, all that one had to do was look at the "right's" past history in covering up for and brushing aside the cataclysmic, unending failures of this diseased white house, to see that, once measuring time came around, they'd be saying things like "Well, it really hasn't been that long."

Look, clowns, it was YOUR boy who set the bar, not us. HE'S the one who said that there would be marked, measurable success by this time, not us. We knew it was a failure before it even began.

Clark: Again at the risk of sounding repetitious, this whole surge thing has nothing to do with a "military victory". If it did, we would have done it when it had a chance of actually succeeding and with tons more troops as you mentioned.

This was done as a last ditch effort to get to a political solution over there which is the only way things will ever settle down. Without the political solution, the violence will simply move to where we are not and continue. The funny thing is that I think that there will be a political solution in Iraq, and that when there is Mr. Bush et al are going to be so horrified and so furious that they will be all but apoplectic. I think the political solution is going to be a put down of the minorities with the help of Iran, and that al-Maliki is planning this with the Iranian nut job and with Al-Sadr as we speak. Remember, they are all on the same side of the sectarian divide there.

The Kurds have their own security and their own oil. They're not going to give up either and I doubt that Iran and/or the Iraqi government has the cajones to invade them. That leaves the Sunni minority out there. That's why al-Maliki wants Petraus out of there, in my opinion. He's arming Sunni tribesman in the belief that the al-Maliki government really wants stability. He sort of forgot the ones the Sunnis are shooting at are al-Maliki's friends who are probably armed by his other friends in Iran.

God. Do you really think Mr. Bush will ever fully understand the can of worms he opened up by destabilizing that region this way?

A really succinct and accurate assessment of the surge and the situation in Iraq in general, Carolyn. Brava! Our troops on the ground are doing their jobs and making some progress locally. But as you point out, there is no military win possible in Iraq: even our own generals tell us that this is ultimately a political, not a military, problem. When people cite Anbar as an example of the surge's success, they neglect to say or don't know that what has made this a success is that the sheiks decided, long before our surge, to help us because Al Qaeda was doing more harm to their interests than good. They have their own agenda, just like every other player in Iraq, and as long as we serve their purposes they will support us. And not a minute more. As for the Maliki government, his Sunni ministers have resigned, the Parliament is on vacation (!), and our people are, as you point out, still out there risking their lives for people who are not committed to a unified Iraq. The administration either doesn't understand what's going on or, more likely, knows but will keep this game going until Bush leaves office, handing his messes to a successor who can take the heat for the eventual disaster. Too bad Bush only commits major crimes...if they were really minor we could have impeached him.

Bill: I just came across the following article. It clearly and succinctly gives an assessment of the problems over there from an Iraqi point of view. It's really rather chilling. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/13/africa/ME-GEN-Iraq.php?page=1

Katie: I don't think the basic idea of a surge is a bad idea. However, it needed to be done when the insurgency started. If not then then when the sectarian violence started. It needed to be a lot more troops.....somewhere in the range of another 100,000 or more. Unfortunately Mr. Bush fired those who told him that. It didn't coincide with his delusional idea of an instant effective Iraqi government and a lot of foot kissing as well as other places.

This "surge" is producing results in a few limited places because the insurgents and the militias simply move to where we are not. The article I cited above says part of the reason some areas of Baghdad are quieter, for instance, is that the Medhi Army has either killed or driven out the people there. Unless they are planning to attack their own partisans, they simply have to move elsewhere. With fewer people in these areas, the criminal activity would also die down.

The last figures I saw were for July which state that 1652 Iraqi civilians died during the month, and that this is 33% higher than in June. So I'm not sure what figures the others are citing when they say things are more peaceful in Iraq now that the Surge is taking hold. Perhaps we need to wait and see how that figure holds up by the end of this month.

It seems to me the Iraqi people don't care about Iraq .
They just want the same thing a majority of us want , for us to leave.
I hope the fools do start the draft , then this mess will end.
There is not one thing over there that is worth the death of one American or one Iraqi .

Generals and their opinions do not constitute policy in a civilian government. Johnson used Westmoreland's never ending lust for more troops to support Johnson's ambition to not let "Old Ho Chi Mihn" beat him. Petreaus is a soldier, from all reports a very good one. He has achieved military success in repressing militant elements in the areas he's put most force. That's simple military logic. This, however has nothing to do with success. The whole idea is "security" for the government to precisely what Bush and Co desires, regardless of the ambitions or rights of the Iraqis. Effect police presense does not constitute peace.

Anyway the political math is set. If the Repubs want any effective control in the coming decade they will have to lower their sights. My bet is before the end of Dubya's term we'll see re-deployment out of harms way while hardening existing "permanent" bases. We'll make a deal for the oil that won't be the rape Dubya wanted but will still be a good deal. Once GI's stop dying and the oil flows the political heat dissapates. The real pity is the main premise of neo-con policy, imperialist invasion for oil, will be justified. Once established as a precedent and with vast military assests ensconced in the region it will just a matter of time before we march again. Unless the US withdraws every last soldier and contractor George Bush wins.

Sam: That would be a valid point if Mr. Bush had not repeatedly stated that he follows the advice of his generals and if they need more troops or a change in strategy that's what they get. That's not true. He follows the advice of his generals only when that advice echoes what he has already decided to do anyway.

I agree with you that military action alone will never bring peace to Iraq. That's what is so frustrating about the situation currently. We send in this so-called surge so that the government there can get the space to do the political stuff and they take off for a month's vacation while our guys die.

I also agree with your oil evaluation. One reason some experts believe the Iraqi government is failing to act on reconciliation, oil sharing, and rewriting the constitution is that there is nothing in it for them. If these experts are to be believed, Mr. Bush wants 70% of the revenues from the Iraqi oil fields to go into the pockets of his friends in the big oil companies with 30% left for the Iraqis themselves. Doesn't sound like all that good a deal to me either.

I think you're right. This is a bad precedence and I firmly believe Mr. Bush has his eyes on the Iranian oil next with the pretext of them importing weapons into Iraq and their nuclear ambitions as reasons for why we "must" invade before they start sending IEDs and nukes here. My god. Do you know how much that logic sounds like the same reasons we invaded Iraq?

Oh I agree that the political issue in Iraq is the main reason for the surge. I don't expect there to be major changes within the Iraqi government. I don't know what to expect but I do plan on waiting for the report before I start shooting holes in it. The Iraqi government is also a horse of a different color. Our own government can't work together most of the time and here it's just about getting re-elected. In Iraq I think that one of the largest problems that they have when it comes to working together is the religious aspect of their lives coming into the equation. And we've seen how strongly that can make people react.

And yes the vacation was a bad move, but maybe they'll come back with cooler heads.

It is supposed to take until September to see results of the surge (according to GWB). I guess we should give a chance.

Charles and Joe: The problem is that the Iraqi government has to take action, very serious and very detailed action by the end of August in order for them to "show progress" by the time the report is filed on the 15th. Does anyone have any idea how exactly that is going to be done when they are on vacation at least until then and maybe longer? There can be no results from the surge unless this political reconciliation is completed since that is the reason for it in the first place according to the president.

Remember, our troops haven't lost a single battle on the ground. Unfortunately this mess cannot be fixed through military action. Only political will and very tough political compromise will do that. It is hard for me to see how that can be done with everyone off sipping tea and seeing the sights.

The problem is the criminal occupation of Iraq. That's the problem. The coalition of the neocrazies and their' troops are the problem. They need to get out. Remove the puppet regime set up by the belligerent enemy forces that ocupied the sovereign nation of Iraq. Rip up the Bremer' Constitution. Write an Iraqi Constitution...hold free elections and send the ambassadors of all the coalition forces packing and never ever sell a drop of oil to the member nations of the coalition forces that attacked and occupied Iraq. Live in peace with the civilized nations of the world.

Number one step...all coalition gunmen...OUT!!!

Carolyn,

I don't see how GWB will be successful with his surge. I was just saying we probably should wait till September to make an assessment of the situation.

Carolyn, one thing that I think we all have to recognize about our illegal involvement in Iraq is that we never intended for there to be stability there. Virtually everything that the BA did post-invasion was to create chaos.

They put 400,000 fewer troops in place than what the experts and generals said would be required. They fired the military and security forces without pay and told them to take their weapons with them. They refused to allow Iraqi citizens to take part in the rebuilding of their own demolished nation, thereby producing unemployment of up to 90% in some parts. They put private mercenaries in the country, and allowed them to shoot at will, with no accountability or oversight whatsoever. They actively abused and tortured innocent men, women, and children. They allowed critical public infrastructure to be ravaged by looters, leaving water and electricity in short supply. They allowed hundreds of tons of high explosives to be looted systematically, and have since allowed a reported 190,000 additional weapons to disappear. They "lost" $8.8 billion in reconstruction cash. They put a despised convicted felon in charge of the oil ministry. They privatized the entire infrastructure, except for the oil industry, and that privatization deal is being held up only by the Iraqi government (thankfully).

Aside from all that they've done that has fostered the current situation, they also lied us into there in the first place. They pretty much did everything that they possibly could to create chaos.

The simple fact is, at this point, with the US having absolutely zero credibility in the region any longer, the US can do nothing any longer, except to incite further rage. The longer we stay, the more it will cost us in human lives and national treasure, and we will see nothing in return for it except far less living Americans, far less national treasure, and a far less safe world.

An assessment from whom? Petraeus? Bush's man in Baghdad...campaigning not for an end of hostilies in Iraq, but, for an invasion of Iran.

There's nothing to assess...this war is a criminal enterprise. It has to end on moral and ethical grounds...after which, certain people should be brought to account for the multiple war crimes commited in the name of none existent things...like WMDs.

We know what the assessment will be (or haven't you heard it before?)...stay the course! Heck, even the Democrats have joined the chorus line:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/us/politics/12dems.html?_r=1&th=&oref=slogin&emc=th&pagewanted=all

Carolyn is right to state that despite his words, Bush and his minions "run" the war in Iraq with an eye to domestic politics. Read "Fiasco," by the Post's long-time, Pulitzer-Prize winning Pentagon correspondent, especially the bit about the disastrous battle for Fallujah after four Blackwater contractors were killed there. The Pentagon civilians overrode the assessment of the Marines on the ground (and the rest of the military) and dictated an all-out, indiscriminate offensive that reduced the city to rubble and killed many civilians who had nothing to do with the atrocity. Then, after horrendous fighting, just as the Marines were beginning to get results, the pols back home ordered them to stop fighting and withdraw to the outskirts, giving the bad guys a major victory and raising insurgent morale throughout Iraq. This book is a must-read if you want to understand Iraq, from the conception of our policy through its execution. Yet it isn't a polemic: just good reporting. The author is Thomas Ricks.

Thanks Bill. You're the second person to recommend that book to me this week. It's tough keeping up with all the reading. I'll see about getting a copy.

Fiasco is also on tape, if that helps. I listened to it on an 11 -hour drive coming back from Atlanta and was so absorbed that I went 15 miles past the Rte 66 turn-off!

Yes, Rachel...we could have used a little expecto patronum at the outset of this folly.

Nearly Half of U.S. Adults Now Applaud the Iraq Surge

Let me guess this straight. We put 30,000 extra troops in harms way in an attempt to stem the flow of blood that occurred because we put 150,000 troops in harms way based on "mischaracterizations of the truth" preceded by poor planning and followed by inept management and billions of dollars of taxpayer money lost or otherwise "unaccounted for?"

And the current Administration and Republican candidate for President think that this is something to be proud of?

Did I mention that even after the 30,000 "surge" troops are brought home we still have the 150,000 troops on the ground - so we haven't actually brought anyone home except the "extra" troops we sent in? Or that the situtation in Afghanistan continues to get worse as al queda is metasticizing and the Taliban are growing stronger because we dropped the ball there (remember, that's where the terrorists were and are) while we traipsed off on this unnecessary personal vendetta?

And now we want to consider electing the guy who thinks that this is sound Presidential management?

Please.

Lincoln was right.