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

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

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

Originally posted by Ramo


There's no plan B.

Why the obsession with plan B? Wasn't it widely acknowledged that this was the last best hope. Do it or else?

I suppose plan b then is else.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo


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...

Do you have data on the mortality count in Baghdad for Feb, and for the previous 12 months? Brookings Iraq Index doesnt break out Baghdad, and doesnt have data for Feb for civilian deaths posted yet.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo

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.

But theyre not disputing the allocation of revenues then, are they? The key Sunni vs Shia issue(wrt oil) , IIUC. Odd that the Sunnis would object now, as they were part of the negotiations. The Sadrists only have 30 seats and may well lose in parliament, if the Kurds, the other Shiites, the Allawi block, and most of the Sunnis vote together.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
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...

First, the decrease in mortalities from car bombings (as opposed to kidnapping-torture) in Baghdad can hardly be big, as there were several huge car bombings IN Baghdad.

Second, there have been several big bombings and killings reported in Diyala, IIUC.

[MichaeltheGreat]

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

Originally posted by Ramo

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1172906738122510.xml&coll=7&thispage=2

There's no plan B.

The time for the surge and Plan B was about, oh, 47 months ago.

We're ****ed, plain and simple, and all we've accomplished is to degrade our combat readiness and mission capabilities.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Sava


Yes! Victory is at hand!

The insurgents are weak. They shall soon be defeated!

I miss him. About the only good thing to come out of this war.

[Dauphin]

MtG. There is a thread created by KH that requires your participation.

[Kuciwalker]

The only people to argue against Drake have been Ramo (pwned) and a couple others with nothing but lame quips... hm.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Dauphin
Try it twice and the odds are even, ahem.

No, only 7/16

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The only people to argue against Drake have been Ramo (pwned) and a couple others with nothing but lame quips... hm.

Ok, then I will.

Given the continued level of carbombings, the major uncertainties about political progress, and the general uncertainty associated with operations in Iraq its premature to say things are "going pretty well" even with the caveat "so far"

I mean havent we learned that premature optimism only leads to disappointment? And to further weakening of morale at home? At the present time id go no further than to say there are some positive signs. Lets watch and wait.

[Arrian]

Yes, but that's so obvious that nobody bothered to say it. It wasn't fear of being "pwnd" by Drake.

-Arrian

[KrazyHorse]

Personally, I think that more troops were an almost certain method to gain at least a temporary quell in the civvy/militia/insurgent-on-civvy violence.

There are two questions:

EDIT: three! Three questions. Surprise, fear, and an almost fanatical devotion to the pope...

1) Will this reduction be accompanied by a rise in insurgent-on-US+Iraqi troops+police (will the people who had been killing Iraqi civilian turn their attention to military targets now that there's more of them)?

2) Will the reduction in Baghdad be accompanied by a rise in violence elsewhere (will the people who have been killing civilians in Baghdad take to killing civilians elsewhere)?

3) Will the reduction in violence lead to more permanent peacefulness (by calming down a situation which had been spiralling out of control) or:

a) Will the violence simply remain low until the additional troops leave (waiting to fight another day)

b) Will the violence remain low for only a short while until the civilians/militia/insurgents figure out how to kill their neighbour even with more US troop presence?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Dauphin
MtG. There is a thread created by KH that requires your participation.

The Coulter/Salma one?

[KrazyHorse]

Intelligence ranking. And no, he's not the one...

Loinburger was one which could have gone either way. The other hasn't been around in 3 years or so IIRC

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Personally, I think that more troops were an almost certain method to gain at least a temporary quell in the civvy/militia/insurgent-on-civvy violence.

There are two questions:

EDIT: three! Three questions. Surprise, fear, and an almost fanatical devotion to the pope...

1) Will this reduction be accompanied by a rise in insurgent-on-US+Iraqi troops+police (will the people who had been killing Iraqi civilian turn their attention to military targets now that there's more of them)?


LOTM - I dont know if its so much a change in attention by the insurgents so much as the higher level of operations by US and Iraqi troops. But yeah, i think casualties are already up, esp among Iraqi troops.

2) Will the reduction in Baghdad be accompanied by a rise in violence elsewhere (will the people who have been killing civilians in Baghdad take to killing civilians elsewhere)?

LOTM - looks that way, esp in Diyala. Of course theres a finite number of places where sunnis and Shia live in close proximity.

3) Will the reduction in violence lead to more permanent peacefulness (by calming down a situation which had been spiralling out of control) or:

a) Will the violence simply remain low until the additional troops leave (waiting to fight another day)

b) Will the violence remain low for only a short while until the civilians/militia/insurgents figure out how to kill their neighbour even with more US troop presence?

64000 dollar question. I think its more than spiraling down, its got to involve political progress as well.

Figuring out? well the Shia dont even seem to be trying, their strategy is just laying low. Whether time is on their side of course depends on the political situation.

The Sunni OTOH are aggressively trying to keep killing. It looks like theyre using the same tried and true techniques though. Whether theyre still getting some bombers through cause the surge is a flawed strategy, or because the surge is gradually building up while they throw everything theyve got at it (like TET?) is impossible to say from here, at this time.