If the "surge" worked so well, then...

[Jokerman]

Isn't that an admission that they didn't send enough troops in the first place?

If all it took to "win" in Iraq was more troops, then most of the violence and many of the deaths in the first few years of the occupation could have been prevented, had they started out with the post-surge force level.

Don't get me wrong, I think the invasion itself was a crime and that the success of the "surge" is just another in a long string of republican lies, but as long as they claim that it solved all the problems in Iraq, they are actually admitting that the original plan was a failure.

[wtmusic]

1. The surge is prolonging an unwinnable war

and as such it's a miserable failure.

[NNN0LHI]

2. Surge worked so well we are still spending $10 Billion dollars a month over there

[Imagevision]

3. How can they claim the 'surge;' worked when the 30,00 troops are still there?

If the 30,000 were able to come home and the violence continued to stay low, if US. troops continued to not lose as many then and only then can anyone say the fucking surge worked!

bring in 100 cops to quell violence, it works - 100 cops leave and the violence picks up again. do you get it?

[Jokerman]

7. I think you missed my point.

I'm not claiming the surge worked, the pro war jack-asses are making that claim.

I'm merely pointing out that, by making that claim, they are admitting that the whole thing was mismanaged from the start.

Do you get it?

[Imagevision]

9. Jokerman> I'm making a comment in general, not you...

[Jokerman]

11. No problem, just checking.

:)

[Imagevision]

4. The surge worked? - conincidently Afgan violence increases 110%

[KansDem]

5. GOPers never mention the "surge" of money going into Iraq...

...to bribe Sunni insurgents to turn their guns on Al-Qaeda...

US bribe insurgents to fight Al-Qaeda

AMERICAN forces are paying Sunni insurgents hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash to switch sides and help them to defeat Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The tactic has boosted the efforts of American forces to restore some order to war-torn provinces around Baghdad in the run-up to a report by General David Petraeus, the US commander, to Congress tomorrow.

Petraeus will tell Congress that there has been great progress at a local level in Iraq following a surge in the number of troops this year, but little sign of political reconciliation.

In a letter to US troops, the general wrote that “local Iraqi leaders are coming forward, opposing extremists and establishing provisional units of neighbourhood security volunteers”.

The Sunday Times has witnessed at first hand the enormous sums of cash changing hands. One sheikh in a town south of Baghdad was given $38,000 (£19,000) and promised a further $189,000 over three months to drive Al-Qaeda fighters from a nearby camp.

--more--
Times of London

How much more $$$ will Uncle Sam have to pony up before we win?

[Oregone]

6. The surge was negligible from a tactical perspective. Anything less than 500K is too few...

....tactically speaking (not morally speaking of course).

But the Surge(tm) in payoffs to terrorist groups was quite effective. Almost as effective as the ethnic cleansing that already ensured less violence would take place anyway.

The surge is a political talking point and a psychological tool (it has NOTHING to do tactically or strategically with the war).

[Jokerman]

12. Agreed, it is nothing more than a political talking point.

But it is a particularly hollow one that I would like to see our candidates let some of the air out of.

[shadowknows69]

8. They've admitted we haven't "won" yet

Sarah herself said "Victory is in sight". Presumably in 99 more years.

[Jokerman]

13. Yet she hammered Obama for not supporting the "successful surge".

It just bugs me when another republican lie is allowed to pass as fact.

[shadowknows69]

15. Which is bullshit and I wish Biden had called her on that one

Because he has repeatedly admitted it was a success in raising security but that the necessary political solutions weren't reached. I personally differ with Obama on this in that I don't think it really, in the long run, improved security much either. The resistance in any occupied country knows when to lay low. As for this new "high tech/super secret" uber strategy that has worked and made Petraus a God among Generals now :puke: when I talked to troops soon after the surge began they were all telling me that the only thing that changed strategically is that they relaxed the rules of engagement to allow us to be quicker to wage war and be less concerned with collateral damage. I was told that essentially we would do a lot of breaking into houses in the middle of the night and detain or occasionally kill any males in the house.

[bdab1973]

16. I don't agree

Petraeus isn't a "God among Generals", but he's well respected among everyone over here as a competent commander. The ROE for engaging has remained much the same, the primary difference is many of the insurgents can be divided into two primary groups...Sunnis that were being supported by al Qaeda money, and Shiites that allied themselves with various pro-Iranian militias, in particular the Jaysh al Mahdi.

The Sunnis quickly realized that al Qaeda wasn't really there to "help" them, more so than to use them in an effort to defeat the US politically. When tribal sheiks started turning up dead, and other local leaders were having their families murdered, they realized they were pawns to al Qaeda. In particular, they realized that al Qaeda was shifting tactics...instead of directly taking on the US troops (which usually always lead to tactical defeat), they turned to creating civil chaos, using the Iraqi populace as their tool. Eventually many Sunni groups became angered over this and many are now on our side, although they were promised they could join the IA eventually, and right now there is some disputes over that promise. Ultimately, it also came down to employment...al Qaeda was paying people to set off bombs, build bombs, and serve as snipers. In a country where unemployment is rampant, and anger over said unemployment is directed at the US, it was easy to initially attract Iraqis into their groups.

The Shia weren't affected by the surge until last spring, but it wasn't really the US that took care of the problem...it was the IA (Iraqi Army). They went to Basrah and basically put a boot up Sadr's ass, and since he's been trying to drop the armed struggle and join the political process. Yes, they had lots of snafus down there last March, but it was remarkable from our viewpoint how well they actually did in an operation that had minimal US support. Basrah quieted down drastically, although there are still some splinter groups of JAM that run around creating problems.

[mudesi]

10. If it worked, WHY ARE THE TROOPS NOT COMING HOME?

Nothing worked.

[bdab1973]

14. Here's my take on it...and I'm in Baghdad

I've deployed over here four times now, starting in 2003. I was deployed here in 2005, then 2006 and now. The conditions in Iraq in 2003 weren't bad yet because the insurgency hadn't really got started by then. By 2005 and 2006, it was pretty crazy. We were getting shot at often, and no one could really say it was a "safe" place. Now, it's VERY quiet comparatively. Is it completely quiet? No, but compared to 2-3 years go, it's a drastic change.

I'm not saying that to support anyone politically...that's just the reality on the ground. I have heartburn over those who say things that are half-true or untrue to further a political agenda...so from my perspective, things are dramatically better in Iraq now than it was a few years ago.

HOWEVER, I will say that the Iraq war was (and is being) mismanaged. Here's a few of my own personal critiques:

1. Paul Bremer and the CPA: Worst idea ever. Bremer was too focused on some end-state that he couldn't realistically achieve (ie Iraqi democracy, de-Baathification, etc). He fired the entire Iraqi military...bad move, because now there are hundreds of thousands of armed Iraqis with no job wandering around realizing that Bremer and his buddies aren't doing anything to make good on the promises we said in 2002-2003. Bremer also had a huge hand in trying to get CENTCOM to pack their bags and go home, and tried to turn Iraq into a State Department case...the mix of armed disgruntled Iraqis plus the time we gave al Qaeda and the militias to stand up allowed the insurgency to try and take advantage of the power vacuum created by Paul Bremer and the CPA.

2. Number of troops on the ground: This was also a mistake, which was remedied by the surge. Rumsfeld was the primary cause of this problem...perhaps Cheney too. Cheney was always talking up how taking Iraq would be a cake walk and would require few troops...and Rumsfeld was trying to deliver on that politically motivated decision. Commanders on the ground often would mention that more troops would be required, but they were always sidelined. It wasn't until 2006, when the bombing of the al Askari mosque in Samarra ignited tensions around Iraq, that politicians in Washington finally realized that the situation was going downhill and quick. Political reconciliation and public works projects CANNOT be accomplished without some form of security.

3. Outside influences: While this may not be directly laid at the feet of those running the war, it did have a negative impact. As the insurgency got spun up and public support waned, Syria, and in particular Iran, saw a golden opportunity. From the Iraqis I work with, they speak of foreigners coming into their neighborhood flashing money to unemployed Iraqis, blaming their situation on the Americans, and telling them they would get paid for planting IEDs, etc. It worked...

There's a ton of other things that I could mention, but I don't want to write a book. I attribute the success in Iraq over the past year or so not so much on Washington, but on the leadership of CENTCOM commanders, in particular General Petraeus. Many of them risked their careers pointing out that NO improvement would occur in Iraq unless the security situation stabilized. It goes back to Maslow's Hierarchy of needs...security is a basic need. No security, no political process...no public works improvements...no growing of public infrastructure or institutions.

I advise the Iraqi military, and we still have a huge bunch of hurdles. But I can say that it's profoundly better with the security situation improving. The Iraqi culture doesn't really help trying to work the improvements here. I think any US leader will probably want to beat their heads against the wall once they come here and realize the situation...paternalistic society where nepotism runs rampant, a society that's based on status rather than merit, and a society that embraces and accepts cronyism and corruption as part of life are only a few problems we are facing. We have a saying..."it's not right, it's not wrong, it's just different". Sometimes I find myself saying that over and over. What we see as political progress, they see as unnecessary.

One other thing I can critique that I left out...contractors. This war will be known as the contractor war. I have come to despise contractors, particularly the security contractors. Most of the construction and other non-combat contractors are harmless, they are just getting paid way better than me and have to deal with half the bullshit. But the security contractors piss me off. They run around here like they own the place, and as though they answer to no one. We almost got hit by a contractor vehicle once, and had some words with the guys, and I nearly pulled my sidearm out when it almost turned ugly. They were stewing for a fight, and told us (a bunch of USAF officers) that "when we were in the military, we paid the contractors respect", as though we were supposed to somehow be in awe of them. Had they hit one of my guys I would have no hesitation to pull my weapon on them.

Back to the Iraqis...I work with a bunch of them. They are mostly good people...there are a few that we refer to as "legacy guys", because they cling to the old mindset....ie, they are Colonel so-and-so and that means they don't have to do any work, yet get all the benefits. But most are working to change their society for the better and embrace more liberal institutions and values. Most of them have paid a price to be part of the new Iraq, and this is something you should pay attention to:

One Iraqi had his house burned to the ground by al Qaeda, yet he still serves in his military. Another had received threats that they would rape his daughters, murder his sons and kidnap his wife. Yet another lost his 2 year old son to al Qaeda...for simply being in the military. We had another guy not show up for work, only to find out he was tortured and murdered. Several other units have had this happen, yet these guys still show up for work, and new guys still join. They all hate al Qaeda. They want their country back, not only from us, but from the terrorists. They understand that having the US pack our bags tomorrow and leave will result in massive failure of their institutions, simply because most of them are too wobbly as of yet to operate without outside help. Some of them don't want us to stay any longer than necessary, but all of them have told me they regard me as their brother.

I hope whoever runs this country in January of 2009 will take the time to study the situation in Iraq and learn about the various nuances, and realize that there is an end state, but if we force a US-created end state it won't work. We have to work with the Iraqi government to come up with a workable plan. Staying forever isn't the answer...leaving on an artificial frame of time isn't either. That's my .02 cents.

[Jokerman]

17. That was worth WAY more than two cents.

Thanks for the inside information.

"Cheney was always talking up how taking Iraq would be a cake walk and would require few troops...and Rumsfeld was trying to deliver on that politically motivated decision."

Anyone who claims the surge is a success needs to be reminded that it was to cover previous mistakes, not some brilliant new strategy.

[NNN0LHI]

19. How do you go about identifying the al Qaeda members?

Do they carry some kind of ID or wear some kind of badge that indicates they belong to al Qaeda?

How do you tell the difference between an al Qaeda terrorist and say just some average Iraqi man or women (or one of their relatives) who was tortured and/or sexually assaulted at Abu Ghraib prison (or some other US prison in Iraq) and who may now be looking for revenge?

How do you discern one from the other?

Don

[bdab1973]

21. Several ways...

The most important way is through local contacts. In the past year or so, the locals have been fingering al Qaeda operatives, people that are foreigners or came from other parts of Iraq to stir up trouble. Other sources are safe houses...we often find contact information from various sources (email, cell phones, etc) and written material.

By the way, you make it sound like 75% of the local population was at Abu Graib or other prisons. I get my information from the guys on the ground doing the searching, not to mention the Iraqis I work with all have al Qaeda stories, and they know who's supposed to be in their neighborhood and who's not.

Here's one thing I want to impart...if you think that the majority of the insurgency is simply everyday Iraqis fighting for their freedom, you're very wrong, and I don't know where you get that notion from. It's highly inaccurate. The insurgency first and foremost consists of multiple elements each with different goals, there is no "common insurgency"...that is a fallacy. Second, the insurgency began because of a power vacuum throughout Iraq created by the CPA, and that vacuum was filled with whoever wanted to try and seize power. Third, the majority of the insurgency falls into two broad categories...Sunni-based al Qaeda-funded groups, and Shia-based Iranian-funded militias. This is well documented, and even the Iraqis I work with know this. The guys I speak to everyday hate al Qaeda and they hate Iran. They are all very afraid of Iran, and the JAM exists still to this day because Iran backs it with money and arms.

If you wish to discuss this further, you can spare me the stuff about ex-Abu Graib prisoners fighting for revenge and freedom. No doubt, there are some who are motivated by that. But those people do NOT typify the insurgency. Please note that I am NOT stumping for any political reasons. Perhaps for you sitting in your living room typing on your computer back home in the States, this war is all about politics. But to me it's not, especially now that I work directly with Iraqis and hear their take on things. I was surprised to say the least, I expected a lot of resentment, but I didn't find that. The stories of Iraqis being terrorized by the US are isolated and the way our media works (ie, sensationalism) makes it seem that's the norm. I have tons of stories and examples of "everyday Iraqis" asking us for our help rather than the opposite.

[NNN0LHI]

23. The people who Shocked and Awed my country would never be my friend

And those who think otherwise are not dealing with reality. The people who would do this to America could be passing out hundred dollar bills and free frozen turkeys on the street corner and they would still never be my friend.

I would wait until the time was right and I would exact some heavy duty revenge.

I might smile at you and laugh and joke with you while you had your guns pointed at me and your tanks behind you but first time you turned your back ... WHAMMO!

Perhaps the Iraqis are more forgiving than me but I really doubt it.

Don

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/24/eveningnews/main537928.shtml

Iraq Faces Massive U.S. Missile Barrage

Plan Calls For Firing Up To 800 Cruise Missiles In First 2 Days Of War

(CBS) They're calling it "A-Day," A as in airstrikes so devastating they would leave Saddam's soldiers unable or unwilling to fight.

If the Pentagon sticks to its current war plan, one day in March the Air Force and Navy will launch between 300 and 400 cruise missiles at targets in Iraq. As CBS News Correspondent David Martin reports, this is more than number that were launched during the entire 40 days of the first Gulf War.

On the second day, the plan calls for launching another 300 to 400 cruise missiles.

"There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," said one Pentagon official who has been briefed on the plan.

"The sheer size of this has never been seen before, never been contemplated before," the official said.

The battle plan is based on a concept developed at the National Defense University. It's called "Shock and Awe" and it focuses on the psychological destruction of the enemy's will to fight rather than the physical destruction of his military forces. snip

"So that you have this simultaneous effect, rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima, not taking days or weeks but in minutes," says Ullman.

[shadowknows69]

24. No offense, and welcome to DU

But I call bullshit psyops. If you're active military there's no way you're posting this much info on a liberal blog. Or you don't give a shit that your commanders could read your key strokes if they wanted.

[bdab1973]

25. Typical response

My commander would only care if I was talking about OPSEC issues, and I'm not. I'm not divulging anything that's detailed enough...no names, no units, nothing. Notice I speak in generalities for that very reason. By the way, my commander is a little too busy with his JOB to really worry if I'm talking about the Iraq war on a liberal blog. Unless I'm divulging any confidential official business only stuff, he probably could care less. This is also my own laptop I'm using, using a sat-link internet connection my unit bought with our own money. Again, unless I'm breaking any part of the UCMJ, the leadership over here really could care less.

I say "typical response" because anything that doesn't go along with some people's views, they are quick to shout out that I'm some kind of paid agent or some other conspiracy. Enough with that. If you want specifics on who I am, I'll be glad to PM you, but I won't put anything out here in the open. Personally, I don't view the war as simply an "us versus them" political issue. People at home with little or no personal stake in the war use it as a political football. And just because I have a certain view on this conflict doesn't mean I don't have other views that would probably be more in line with how you think. I am human and I don't have to believe everything according to DU.

[deaniac21]

18. We still have 65000 troops in Germany and 37500 in South Korea.

[NNN0LHI]

20. We have Ø troops in Vietnam

[bdab1973]

22. And hopefully...

In the next several years we'll have zero combat troops in Iraq and only advisors. You'd be kidding yourself if you think these guys don't need advisors...well, perhaps we could NOT advise them...but that would essentially leave them hanging.