The "surge" is a success?

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS
Just so that I have it clear, you're arguing that a successful surge will not help bring final victory in Iraq?

The "surge" is far too weak to achieve the reductions in overall violence (which even now remains higher than in 2005 or before) that would trully create a space for healing or at least glossing over the secterian rifts in Iraq, even assuming that was what the Iraqis themselves wanted. We would need the troop levels Shinseki spoke about before we invaded, and there has NEVER been enough political support in the US for those troop levels, which is why the Bush admin. did everything possible to call those levels outrageous back then.

Of course, I dont for a second believe that the Iraqi sects actually want to reconcile. The Shiites think that finally they rule, given that they are the absolute majority in Iraq. The Kurds simply want to have their autonomy, or better yet, independence. And the Sunni are living in a fantasy land where they get to take over again - they won;t even acknowledge they are a minority.

So no, this "surge" by itself is doomed to be nothing more than a salve.

[DanS]

Originally posted by GePap
The "surge" is far too weak to achieve the reductions in overall violence (which even now remains higher than in 2005 or before) that would trully create a space for healing or at least glossing over the secterian rifts in Iraq, even assuming that was what the Iraqis themselves wanted.

OK, your position is now clear.

However, I think that it's a fluid situation not at all conducive to the absolutes that you espouse. We do not know the strength of impact of the strategy, but the trend is clear and favorable. Also, in my opinion, you focus too much on the troop strength and not nearly enough on whether there is effective military leadership and a good plan (a classic counterinsurgency). Early returns are that we now have more effective leadership in charge.

[DinoDoc]

For Ramo:

Rep. Nancy Boyda, a Kansas Democrat, recently found reports of progress unendurable. She left a hearing of the Armed Services Committee because retired Gen. Jack Keane was saying things Boyda thinks might "further divide this country," such as that Iraq's "schools are open. The markets are teeming with people." Boyda explained: "There is only so much you can take until we in fact had to leave the room for a while . . . after so much of the frustration of having to listen to what we listened to."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/22/AR2007082202402.html

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS


OK, your position is now clear.

However, I think that it's a fluid situation not at all conducive to the absolutes that you espouse. We do not know the strength of impact of the strategy, but the trend is clear and favorable. Also, in my opinion, you focus too much on the troop strength and not nearly enough on whether there is effective military leadership and a good plan (a classic counterinsurgency). Early returns are that we now have more effective leadership in charge.

My position is that your focus on the military aspect is a foolish, misguided, and utterly inane one - the same sort of myopia that led to the whole mess in Iraq as is.

[DanS]

Great. Now I can proceed to ignore you.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS
Great. Now I can proceed to ignore you.

You are about as knowledgeable about Iraq as Wolfowitz, Perle, and Cheney are.

[Patroklos]

Lets see: There is no military solution to Iraq, only political ones.

Thats not what he said, perhaps you shoud get glasses.

How exactly do hack a quote so bad in the same post where you directly quote what was actually said? Are you even trying anymore (rhetorical)? Gepap

[GePap]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Thats not what he said, perhaps you shoud get glasses.

How exactly do hack a quote so bad in the same post where you directly quote what was actually said? Are you even trying anymore (rhetorical)? Gepap

Petreus said:

"There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq,"

and

adding that political negotiations were crucial to forging any lasting peace.

I said:

There is no military solution to Iraq, only political ones

And you have the gaul to say I misquoted???

[GePap]

With you two, its too damn easy. Ramo is simply too nice to show contempt when it is necessary.

[Patroklos]

I am looking for the "only" part of the political solutions, and wouldn't you know it, it isn't there

What I did see was this...

David Petraeus said military action was necessary to improve security in Iraq but "not sufficient" to end violence altogether.

Odd you missed it since you bolded it yourself. In any case it is clear he thinks that both military and political success is required for overall success. As most sane people do (hence not you).

It seems one is headed that way, how dare any of us recognize that simple fact

What exactly does an oil revenue sharingg deal mean if there is no means to enforce it? Jack.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I am looking for the "only" part of the political solutions, and wouldn't you know it, it isn't there

What I did see was this...



Odd you missed it since you bolded it yourself. In any case it is clear he thinks that both military and political success is required for overall success. As most sane people do (hence not you).

this from the person who thinks secterian violence was not important....

It seems one is headed that way, how dare any of us recognize that simple fact

Is violence in iraq better than in 2005? or 2004? or 2003? NO. Its better than in 2006, which was the worst year, that is all. That is scant evidence of success.

What exactly does an oil revenue sharingg deal mean if there is no means to enforce it? Jack.

You are trully thick. I am the one that said that the US needs the troop levels Shinseki mentioned to bring Iraq under control. Or, to put is simply, I am the one who thinks the "surge" is a stunt because it is HORRIBLY UNDERMANNED.

We need 250,000 men in Iraq to bring violence down to an acceptable level, and over a thousand Iraq civilians dying each month from political violence is unacceptable. Is that better than 2000 a month? DUH. Is that a level of violence in which any peace can come? given that violence was lower in 2003, 2004, and 2005, and yet peace and progress did not come in any of those years, OBVIOUSLY NOT.

except that sensible chickenhawks (ie.not Pati) always knew the American people would never support that kind of commitment - and why they drove Shinseki from his post when he dared to mention those numbers, and why I said from the beginning that this administration and this group of people were utterly incapable of pulling Iraq of right, which was a great reason to oppose this war in the first place. My faith in the incompetence of this administration and its syncopants like Pati was well placed, and completely accurate.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
You are about as knowledgeable about Iraq as Wolfowitz, Perle, and Cheney are.

I'm a bit surprised you're complimenting someone who just said he was ignoring you.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


I'm a bit surprised you're complimenting someone who just said he was ignoring you.

if you think that was a compliment, you are more deluded than DanS.

[Kuciwalker]

I suspect I'm exactly as deluded as DanS, actually.

[GePap]

Given how obnoxious the whole notion of this thread it, I felt it my duty to add some meaningful spam. So, some early opinion pieces from moi on this sad war, back from the days before the whole thing even started.

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=81373

I am anti-war, but closer to the fence. Yesterday they repeated a great Frontline piece in which they took a bunch of frontlines done about iraq since 1990 and pieced them together to make one collage about the whole last 12 years, and it helped me gather my thoughts.

I am all for getting rid of Saddam Hussein, nor am I too worried that the UN sec Council did not approve it. What bother me greatly is that there was, unlike in kosovo, no substitute for the UN (in Yugoslavia you had NATO if not the UN) but more importantly, what disturbs me to no end is the underlying asumption for this war.

I do not think the Us has the ability, with all it power, to remake the world. I do not think "domino" theories, whether they are applied to communism or dmeocracy work. The admin. has undertaken a revolutionary act while justifying the act with absurd notions of a made up threat to gain support at home. This means that once the populace thinks the "threat" is gone, their support for the long-term operation afterwards will lower. The American people have no stomach for changing the world, or some Democratic Man's burden, which means that to create real, long term change, international cooperaion is key. This admin., may have admireable goals but its methods and its ideology are so dangerous that they invalidate any good they are trying to do.

and

I think that those that oppose the war for humanitarian reasons are on a loosing side. This war will not kill tens of thousand while it goes on and most Iraqis do want to get rid of saddam, and you will see more pics of Iraqis celebrating the fall of the regime.

The problems come after we declare victory: how much retribution will there be? How much terrorism against the US occupaiton? how will the neighboring states deal with the occupaiton? what kind of infigthing will we have among the Iraqis? and how well will the actual terrorist, you know, the guys that killed 3000 people in one day, use this whole affair to further their aims.

As for the claims that this is an international effort... in most of those places that back us, internal support is iffy, whic means that the support is highly conditional, and most likely not long term. As long as things are easy, we have this "coolition". If things start going bad, well, expect a lot of rats jumping off.

On how month the military operations to overthrow Saddam would take:

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=80700&perpage=25&pagenumber=2

There is some current news buzzing baou the Iraqis hitting first, once they think we have really decided for war. That might slow things down a couple of days (I mean just that, 48 hours).

The issue I have is how the convoys of fuel wil be protected. We are assuming no resitance up to Baghdad, which is just fine. That syas nothing though about some Saddam friendly forces staying put in the south, waiting tl the tanks roared forwards to then hit fuel convoys.

Another possible issue iw whether the Turks come inot the north to keep Kurds down..that just adds to uncertainty and may make the fighting last a bit longer..somehow.

Still, I voted 2 weeks to a month.