Anti-war crowd and Moveon.org dont look now, more numbers prove surge working

Sorry ModernDay, but the surge still is not working. The purpose of the surge was never to do anything but to provide breathing space for the Iraqi government to act. For the surge to be "working" the Iraqi government would have to be producing results which it decidedly is not. Mr. Bush made it very clear at the beginning what the definition of "success" was for this surge and it has not happened.

Either way, the news is heartening to anyone opposed to the mass killing going on there. We shall see how things unfold, but it is good news no matter what side of the question you are on. If it stabilizes there, we can get the hell out that much sooner, I would hope. We already know Bush will never take the troops out, but at least if we get a reasonable president in 09, maybe there's hope they can stand on their own. God can only hope. Thanks for the article Publius, it makes my day. By the way though, I think you meant MoveOn and the anti war crowd, not move on and move on.

Well, we all knew this was coming! A decrease in deaths is a day for celebration? Huh? We still lost 64 brave soldiers for absolutely nothing! We still caused about 1000 or more Iraqis to die, and for what? Not to mention the countless deaths that went unreported, or the countless soldiers who were injured severely! Even if the deaths were to drop to one a day, that is unacceptable! We have no right to be in Iraq, and never did! The US is carrrying out terrorists attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan, and our government is the terrorists! Just like we were when we installed the Shah of Iran, and Saddam Hussein, and countless others we have backed! The US is one of the worst terrorist organizations on this planet! Why do you think we have so many enemies? We have no God given right to attack a country if we don't agree with their leaders! We certainly don't have a democracy here any more, and should not try to push false democracy on any country!

You can spread the word all you want Publius - they still won't believe you.

the anti-war crowd they get kind of violent, lol.

As Nanci said, they won't believe it, or at least, they'll never admit that it is working.

I heard that 79% of all statistics are erroneous.

It's absolutely ludicrous to judge success on the basis of a made-up stat coming from one month. The so-called SURGE was a means to an end, the END state being the goal. The goal is what is used to measure success. The GOAL is a functioning Iraqi government, one that has moved to resolve a numbered list of important issues whereupon the U.S. can then start to take the troops out of the streets and Iraq can start actually functioning as an independent country under a sovereign government.

What you have here is a meaningless short-term, fabricated (yes, because the U.S. military so narrowly defines what they count as a war-related death now) statistic that is totally meaningless to sensible people who know what the real goal is here.

But, it's great that the BA can put out a number all over the media and make so many of you so happy.

I'd actually LOVE to hear good news, Lex. I'd love to hear news about real success - success in relation to the GOAL that was set for the surge, not the meaningless numbers the media throws out there on a daily basis, good or bad, to keep losers like yourself happy. Have a very happy day, Lex. Goin' to the zoo today?

Carolyn,
No the surge was there to provide protection for the people and drive out/kill terrorists. Main goal prove to ordinary Iraqis that there is a better alternative then al khaida. THIS then will provide breathing room for the government to get their act together as people are less worried of getting blown up and actually show up to work.
Sheryl,
Yes that is what the bush administration is most worried about, being popular and making everyone happy. I can't think of an administration that has taken more heat for doing what military experts are telling them they need to do in order to succeed.

Ron you are write about the messup in the article and for some reason it wont let me edit it. I agree that I hope this allows for quicker sucess so we can get Iraq going so we can use our manpower and resources on something else other than just Iraq.

Sorry Victor but that's simply not true. Mr. Bush implemented the surge. He, along with congress, issued a set of benchmarks by which its success would be measured. They failed to meet nearly all of those benchmarks, and did fail to meet all the important ones. Mr. Bush stated without equivocation that the goal of the surge was to allow the Iraqi government to make very difficult political steps. They not only failed to make those steps they decided to go on vacation.

As for doing what the military experts tell them is the way to go, that also is strictly not true. Those military experts who told Mr. Bush he needed three times the troops going into Iraq, a plan for the occupation following the war, and that the surge was too little too late, were ignored or fired. Mr. Bush and his cronies listen to and take advice from only those military people who tell them what they have already decided to do.

I'm glad that fewer people died this past 30 days. Whether that is a statistical fluke or a side-effect of the surge remains to be seen. No matter which it turns out to be, at least there are a few fewer American soldiers coming home in body bags the past month. That's good news.

ModernDay: I would love to see the Iraqi government step up and do its job, though it's hard to see how it can given that so many members of both the government and the parliament have simply walked away in disgust at their inaction. Now we are faced with growing reports of war plans in Iran. I wonder where in hell we're going to get the troops to sacrifice on that effort, or whether the plan simply involves nuking the entire country back to the stone age. Given the current mind-set in Washington these days, that's a real possibility I guess.

It is good news to hear that violence is decearsing, but the numbers are way too high and unacceptable. Even one Iraqi or American death is too much. We should not be celebrating or be happy that ony 66 troops and only 800 Iraqis died last month. None of those numbers and none of the sacrifices of the troops will matter until the numbers reach zero and Iraq is a peaecful nation.

First of all, we are at the lowest level of deaths since July 2006. So we are back to where we were a year ago and that is good?
Here are the factors that have nothing to do with the surge that probably led to the decrease in killings.
1) al-Mahdi army is on a 6 month break from killing people (watch out when they are back in action)
2) Iran and al-Maliki came to an agreement that Iran will do more to stop the flow of weapons and terrorists coming across it's borders.
3) They can only commit ethnic cleansing when there are ethnic groups left in mixed neighborhoods and it seems that they have just about finished the job of ethnically cleansing most areas.

So the decrease in deaths cannot be attributed to the surge, but rather to other factors in Iraq. The GOAL of the surge was to help give breathing room for the government to make political progress which has NOT happened. We are supporting militias that were once killing us and when they get al-Qaeda out of their way, they may just turn on us again. Where is the success?

Thats right Carlyn, some benchmarks showed progress some not at all. You use the benchmarks as excuse to give up the administration uses benchmarks to evaluate what needs to do next.
Show me one time where ACTING military leaders, these are guys responsible for day to day operations, asked for more troops and the administration said sorry no cigar?

Shari, you bring up some very good points. May I remind you though that Iraq is not just a military solutions so now that diplomatic efforts are paying off you are still complaining?

IRAQ's diplomatic efforts with Iran are paying off, but I don't see much effort on the US's part to be diplomatic with Iran. What diplomatic efforts do you see paying off?

All 3 points you raised. Well actually only first 2 but you are wrong on the 3rd point. It is just impossible for you to accept that our troops have done an amazing job in quieting down the problems and give them the credit they deserve. But 2 out of 3 aint bad. We put more pressure on the iraqi governement to reach out and we HAVE talked to Iran for the first time in decades. Hell he even came to visit us here in US.

Victor - it is almost painful how totally misinformed you are. You really need to stop listening to/reading the sources you currently get your news from and start looking for other sources of news (more accurate ones).

Ahmadinejad did not come to the U.S. recently for talks with our government. He came to the UN to address the assembly and attend meetings there as a rep of Iran. The United States and the Israeli delegations were not even PRESENT in the general assembly when he spoke. That's how absolutely ignorant and obstinate we are about not even listening to a speech from the Iranian representative, never mind actually opening up serious diplomatic talks with Iran.

Thank you Sheryl, I think what I said was he came to visit us never claimed we had diplomatic breakthroughs with them. I am familiar with how the UN works my dad spent over 25 years there. And while I agree with you that the US delegation was petty for not being there you need to understand a simple reality about diplomacy. Very little is negotiated on the floor. Most of the negotiations happen in side meetings. And while I do not for one second believe Bush and Ahmadinejad met at the UN it is plausible that some in his delegation have met with some of our allies and maybe even us. Only because a meeting does not make it to the front page does not mean it didn't happen.

Now regarding the serious diplomatic talk with Iran. How exactly do you define that? You probably want to see a photo op in the rose garden with them shaking hands. Well that aint gonna happen. The administration is supporting group negotiations which includes the Europe 4 and other surrounding countries. Unilateral negotiations will not do much. Its kind of like how to deal with a bully. You can either do it yourself or you can get your friends to come and say if you mess with any one of us you are messing with us all.

Last I heard was that the Europeans were trying to get the Bush Admin. to support the talks with Iran and participate. The U.S. will have none of it. We are really getting conflicting information. Can you provide me some kind of proof that we are participating? There has to be an article or something. It would be absurd keeping our participation completely secret, yet allowing articles to be written to the contrary, no?

I think you are simply IMPLYING that they MAY be in secret talks with IRAN, all the while making PUBLIC statements which insult Iran (like being absent for the speech at the UN) and PUBLICLY saying that they will not participate with the Europeans in any talks with Iran. Gee, that's some diplomacy there - never heard of it being done like THAT before!

Not so secret Sheryl as the state department is starting a whole office just to deal with Iran. But thank you for asking and not just calling names.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/02/us.iran/index.html

Please read what I wrote Sheryl, I did NOT say we have official high level meetings right now. What would be absurd is to think that leaders of countries negotiate everything themselves. They have a team of negotiators on both sides that hammer out the language and then the leaders come together and agree on the language. This MAY (notice not saying IS) be going on right now and is just the normal diplomatic process.

But I think Dr Rice puts it best when she said ""To underscore our commitment to a diplomatic solution and to enhance prospects for success, as soon as Iran fully and verifiably suspends its enrichment and reprocessing activities the United States will come to the table," U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said at the State Department. "
http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2006/06/01/251.html

I do not think that THAT is too much to ask unless you prefer them to pull a pearl harbor on us and negotiate while they move their fleet(build their A-Bomb) to attack and then "fail to translate the declaration of war" to warn us.

We want to have high level talks and not just ambassador to ambassador like they did a few months ago but first they need to stop building the A-bomb.

Well, Victor. That article is from early 2006 and it looks like an office was created to study Iran and make recommendations. It is not a diplomatic group working in conjunction with European and Eastern countries in talks.

In fact, even CNN is suspicious of the intent of the office:

"When asked directly whether the office is being created to promote regime change in Iran, the senior official said the office is being created "to facilitate a change in Iranian policies and actions.""

I don't really see that as serious diplomacy, but thanks for the read. I also would not trust Condoleezza Rice's statements farther than I could throw the woman. She has been filmed lying a number of times to the Congress over the past years.

Sheryl,
I used the 2006 article because people think US has not been doing anything or just started last week. You quoted one paragraph to prove your argument but failed to paste the part where there are intense diplomatic efforts which started in 2006. How do you know they are not working in conjunction with europeans? A safe assumption is that when diplomats are pulled from europe to work in this department that they still have contacts there that they are speaking with. You speak in absolutes and unless you work in the state department in that department I seriously doubt you or anyone here knows.

We want change in Iranian policies and actions because at this point he says he wants to blow Israel off the face of the earth every other week almost like clockwork(change policies). They do support the insurgency in Iraq and that is undeniable fact and that needs to stop(change actions).

Lying to the congress is a criminal offense - whether sworn in or not. I seriously doubt they were lies. Now she is a skilled diplomat and I do not doubt that she talked circles around them but considering THIS congress that should not be too difficult.

Thank you for posting your article to !!!Today's Top Three Photos and Articles!!!@

http://bestoftoday.gather.com/

It is a mess, no matter whose numbers you believe