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

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
No, it's in Anbar as well. But:

As for Baghdad vs. the rest of the country, it's hardly an improvement if sectarian killings are simply moved elsewhere in the country.

Er, no. The whole concept is that you HAVE to secure Baghdad first. Violence there is worse, for the political future of the country, than violence in Diyala. If you cant secure the capital, no has any confidence in the political future, even if deaths were to decline in Diyala.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
You're saying that Gordon Smith is a pathological liar? Didn't see where the article said that.

even if hes not a liar, it could be that hes taking the generals words out of context, or construing them differently than they were intended.

Surely someone who posts here knows how that can be done.

[lord of the mark]

By the way, isnt it obvious that if there was a plan B, the admin wouldnt be talking about it.

Plan B would involve minimizing the consequences of failure, and slowly withdrawing. Even an admin less secretive than this one probably wouldnt be admitting its considering that.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


Aren't we on plan F by now?

-Arrian

Precisely. We've changed tack many times, but the admin never admits a major change. Just as they wont admit to having a plan B, even if they have one.

[self biased]

i just hope things stay calm until june, when my friend gets home.

[MOBIUS]

[Arrian]

Originally posted by self biased
i just hope things stay calm until june, when my friend gets home.

Indeed. My niece is over there too. As is our own GhengisFarb.

-Arrian

[MOBIUS]

In fact, let's hope we achieve the 25%...

Let's hope the crackdown gives the Iraqi govt and security services enough time to strengthen in relative safety while the insurgents and militias lay low to avoid confrontation with US forces. The question is, can the US out wait the enemies of the Iraq govt?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
The surge seems to going pretty well so far.

Been visiting the nediverse lately?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by GePap
The problem with the "surge" is that it is just that, a temporary thing. Violence in Baghdad itself is down the last few days, but then the Sunni insurgency continues unabated. Its great that lowering kilings by Shiite death squads will make Sunnis feel safer, but if the Sunni extremist keep killing Shiites with suicide bombs an car bombs, the poor Shiites who support Sadr aren't just going to sit there and get killed to ensure that the Sunni feel safe.

A "surge" may lower violence as long as it is ongoing, but what does it do to end the political problems that underlie everything? I am not a fan of the theory that less violence in the interim will make everyone change their political aims all of a sudden.

A very good summary.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oerdin


A very good summary.

1. Clearly the Sunni insurgent bombings have to also decrease for this to work.

2. There have already been reports that folks have returned to areas from which theyd been ethnically cleansed. Clearly reducing the revenge cycle of killing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for political reconciliation. So far theres been a deal on oil (awaiting confirmation in parliament, IIUC) and the beginnings of change within the govt. Is that change windowdressing only, or the start of real change? To early to say, IMHO.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
The surge seems to going pretty well so far.

Yes! Victory is at hand!

The insurgents are weak. They shall soon be defeated!

[Arrian]

Deal on oil

I hope that provides some incentive for people to put down the guns/bombs and go the political route...

-Arrian

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Sava


Yes! Victory is at hand!

The insurgents are weak. They shall soon be defeated!

I miss Bagdad Bob.

[Ramo]

Fewer total civilian deaths in Februray than in months.

Yeah, the Iraqi gov't tried to hoodwink us on that one. They didn't normalize the mortality count wrt the length of the month, and didn't include the last day of February...

Beyond that are the political changes . The oil deal. The dismissal of the pro-death squad dep min of health. Dismissals of thousands of officials tied to militias. Suggestions of a cabinet reshuffle, long awaited.

Bulani's purge is definitely a good sign. But there may be problems with the nationalist forces regarding the oil deal (i.e. the Sunnis Arabs and the Sadrists), who see it as a giveaway to big oil.

Er, no. The whole concept is that you HAVE to secure Baghdad first. Violence there is worse, for the political future of the country, than violence in Diyala. If you cant secure the capital, no has any confidence in the political future, even if deaths were to decline in Diyala.

I tend to agree. But I'm trying to square the supposedly drastic decreases in mortalities in Baghdad with the fairly small drop in the overall mortality rate that the Iraqi gov't has come up with. If the Baghdad numbers that people are throwing around are correct, there's a big increase in mortalities somewhere else. Which isn't good...