Petraeus: "Surge" has 25% chance of success.

[Drake Tungsten]

I disagree.

Of course you do. You're a fool.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oerdin
One person equals plural? I agree that they've committed crimes worthy of impeachment but even the Democratic leadership has said there is no chance for impeachment. It isn't going to happen.

Ehst makes your claims even more laughable is that the one person who has called for impeachment is running for President and is so far behind he's obviously just grand standing to get noticed. There is no way even 1% of the Democratic members of Congress would support this guy's bill.

Which, of course, is why I said "some of the more radical Dems." I know most Dems do not and would not support any effort to impeach Bush or Cheney without some hard evidence of criminal activity. Just being opposed to the war is not enough unless it can be shown that Bush lied, as most Dems claim.

[MOBIUS]

Hey Drake, is part of the success of the surge getting your troops kidnapped?

I haven't seen many of your 'The Surge is a Success' posts lately...

[MOBIUS]

Hey Drake 'The Surge' Tungsten, Westerners are now getting kidnapped from govt buildings and US casualties are 'surging' (worst so far in 2007), is this part of your successful surge strategy?

I can understand you being too much of a coward to put your balls on the line and put your body where your mouth is out in Iraq, but are you not even man enough to admit how badly wrong you have been on here about this since day one (Invasion of Iraq four years ago)?

[Dinner]

Bush has now said he will abandon Baghdad next year and the US will only focus on training Iraqis and anti-terrorism. Does that mean your surge worked Drakie-poo? Oh, what! Despite the surge kidnappings and attacks in the Green Zone are up and Bush is giving up. Gee, I guess you were wrong. Will you admite to it or can we look forward to your typical Eric Cartman like circle jerk of illogic?

[Drake Tungsten]

I predicted that the surge would most likely fizzle out over two months ago. So, shouldn't you dumbasses be congratulating me on my superior knowledge?

Post 79...

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
So what? The fact that things turned bad later doesn't change the fact that they started well. I don't see why I should deny the current reality of the situation because there's a (good) chance that things may not go as well in the future.

[lord of the mark]

IIUC the stats on attacks on civilians in Baghdad went down pretty dramatically in Feb, March, and April. They hardly went down at all for Iraq overall, as Sunni insurgents in particular moved to other areas, esp Baquba. US casualities went up, as expected, given a much more aggressive use of US forces on the ground. USe of 'pre-Samarra' as a benchmark is not unreasonable, from the admin POV, since the admin thinks the political process and Train and equip were moving forward pre-Samarra, and that its post-Samarra levels of violence that have derailed those processes. Civilian casualties were back up in May, which was a bad month, despite further arrivals of US troops in country.

These leaves two questions. A. Which will be more charecteristic, the drop in civilian casualties in the early months of the surge, or the bad month of May. IOW, was May a fluke, or does it represent the insurgents (and the Sadrists) learning and reacting to the surge? B. If the "good" answer to be A is right, will this still fairly modest improvement in Baghdad alone, provide impetus for significant advances on the political side by September? Or will the Iraqi political process continue to be stuck, or at least to be going too slow for the Washington process?

If the answers to either question is the "wrong" one, the surge fails. Right now theres an excellent chance the surge will fail. Plan B's then include rapid withdrawl, slower withdrawl with T&E, more rigid benchmarks for the Iraqi govt, trying to put in place a new Iraqi govt, making a deal with Iran and/or Syria, and various combos of the above.

[MOBIUS]

'Surge' in troop casualties...

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I predicted that the surge would most likely fizzle out over two months ago. So, shouldn't you dumbasses be congratulating me on my superior knowledge?

Post 79...

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
So what? The fact that things turned bad later doesn't change the fact that they started well. I don't see why I should deny the current reality of the situation because there's a (good) chance that things may not go as well in the future.

That's just you covering your ass and doing some serious backpedalling after we'd just rammed it down your throat that you were being overly optimistic...

But as usual the chickenhawks get more people killed for no discernable gain...

May has been one of the deadliest months on record in Iraq - 10 American soldiers were killed on Memorial Day alone bringing US deaths to a total of 120, the highest since November 2004.

As I correctly predicted, the only surge is in the number of bodybags comng home, but then I didn't exactly need a crystal ball...

[MOBIUS]

The surge in US deaths continues I see...

From the BBC:

Wednesday's deaths bring the US military toll to 47 this month. The previous three months were the bloodiest for American forces since they led the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

What a terrible, senseless waste of life...