The "surge" is a success?

[Arrian]

Shrapnel,

Ramo has said repeatedly that his backup for saying we cannot sustain the surge (past what, spring of next year?) is based on multiple statements by Pentagon officials. I do think he gave links at one point (may have been a different thread).

Now, given that the Pentagon is, erm, not exactly anti-war, is there some reason to think that those who have said such things are fibbing?

-Arrian

[Patroklos]

Agreed, on this I will just have to agree to disagree.

Sometimes I wonder why I am not on your ignore list, Ramo

[Arrian]

Because you can actually carry an intelligent debate if you try.

-Arrian

[Patroklos]

Ramo has said repeatedly that his backup for saying we cannot sustain the surge (past what, spring of next year?) is based on multiple statements by Pentagon officials. I do think he gave links at one point (may have been a different thread).

Well, we discussed this in the beginning of this thread, and what the Petagon actually said is we cannot support the surge without sacrificing some other things. A perfectly undertandable and not unpredicted stance in my opinion.

[Patroklos]

Because you can actually carry an intelligent debate if you try.

Bah, unintelligent conversations are much more fun, where is that Happy Putin thread anyways...

[Ramo]

Arrian, I don't necessarily think that PLATO gives Petraeus too much credence. My issue is with his interpretation of Clyburn's statement. The only way it could be considered some sort of hope for failure is if Pet is omniscient diety.

And I'm harping on this because it's an important point. Arguing that the opposition is making bad faith arguments and are really traitorous scum who don't want us to succeed is a really beyond the pale, and seriously degrades political discourse.

[Arrian]

Patroklos,

I don't have the actual words handy. But I guess it all depends on exactly what has to be sacrificed in order to keep the surge going, doesn't it? If it is something that realistically can be sacrificed, then your characterization of it is correct. If it is something that is clearly unacceptable (and I don't mean unacceptable to folks who are already pro-immediate pullout), then Ramo is closer to the mark.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Ramo
Arrian, I don't necessarily think that PLATO gives Petraeus too much credence. My issue is with his interpretation of Clyburn's statement. The only way it could be considered some sort of hope for failure is if Pet is omniscient diety.

And I'm harping on this because it's an important point. Arguing that the opposition is making bad faith arguments and are really traitorous scum who don't want us to succeed is a really beyond the pale, and seriously degrades political discourse.

Obviously I agree with your second paragraph.

The problem is that Clyburn's statement is easily twisted that way. So easily, in fact, that one has to ponder what he was thinking as he said it.

Many on the right don't say that all critics are hoping for defeat, but rather have honed that argument to the more subtle "some have married their political future to defeat." And THAT, more refined, accusation DOES appear to apply to Clyburn.

Of course... it doesn't really mean what they'd like it to mean, when you really think about it.

Clyburn, it appears, wants to pull out, or at least draw down/end the surge. Many have decided that we're just throwing good money (and blood) after bad, and it's time to cut bait. Those people aren't anti-American, they aren't traitors... they really think that the best policy at this point is to withdraw. Thus, if you really believe that withdrawl is the right move, a (likely temporary blip*) positive report could be "bad" because it diminishes the likelyhood of convincing others that your position is correct.

-Arrian

* - as in: if you think it's a lost cause, then you are not going to be convinced otherwise by a mildly positive report. Probably only a really big turnaround is going to change you mind on it. Thus, to you, a positive report from the general reflects only a temporary, illusory improvement - not real progress.

[Patroklos]

If it is something that realistically can be sacrificed, then your characterization of it is correct. If it is something that is clearly unacceptable (and I don't mean unacceptable to folks who are already pro-immediate pullout), then Ramo is closer to the mark.

I keep asking people to find that out when they throw that quote around, but they would rather believe it is impossible for the US to keep a mere 200,000 troops supported overseas. On the face of it, does that seem real to you?

[Arrian]

I keep asking people to find that out when they throw that quote around, but they would rather believe it is impossible for the US to keep a mere 200,000 troops supported overseas. On the face of it, does that seem real to you?

Actually, I have no idea.

Though it's more than just deploying 200,000 troops. It's deploying them to what is basically a warzone. They're not in a base in a friendly country.

But anyway, no I really don't know. Which is why I laid out the criteria the way I did (if this, then that. if that, then the other thing). It's because, for all I know, it could be either...

-Arrian

[Shrapnel12]

Originally posted by Arrian
Shrapnel,

Ramo has said repeatedly that his backup for saying we cannot sustain the surge (past what, spring of next year?) is based on multiple statements by Pentagon officials. I do think he gave links at one point (may have been a different thread).

Now, given that the Pentagon is, erm, not exactly anti-war, is there some reason to think that those who have said such things are fibbing?

-Arrian

No, my question was sincere. I really wanted to know their reasoning. I didnt' see Ramos's links. When threads get so long, I tend to miss things. Hope you can understand.

[Arrian]

The quotes themselves aren't in this thread (I went back to the first couple of pages to check). I think the actual words may have been discussed in a similar thread recently, but I'm a little fuzzy on that.

One could try and look it up on the 'net, of course. But I gotta run, so I can't now.

Maybe Ramo has a link or two handy.

-Arrian

[Ramo]

Regarding the end of the surge and ability to cannibalize other units, I don't personally have that sort of knowledge (which is why I rely on the Pentagon). If we can reasonably sustain the surge, I would have expected the administration to push that sort of policy. But, by all accounts, it isn't:

WASHINGTON - Some 28,000 American combat troops will be withdrawn from Iraq over a five-month period beginning in April, under a plan to be submitted to President Bush next month by Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq.

Petraeus' deputy, Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, said yesterday that the five combat brigades ordered by Bush to "surge" to Iraq last winter would be withdrawn at a rate of one brigade per month. The withdrawal, to be completed in August 2008, would leave about 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

Odierno, speaking to reporters at the Pentagon on a video link from Baghdad, cautioned that while U.S. forces in Iraq are making steady progress, "our recent tactical successes are not yet enduring trends."

"We no longer see the cycle of sectarian revenge that plagued Iraq last year," Odierno said, but he added: "There are no easy solutions in Iraq, and it will continue to require strategic patience."

The debate about troop withdrawals from Iraq will intensify next month, when Petraeus is due to report on how the "surge" of troops and new counterinsurgency tactics have affected conditions in Iraq's violent sectarian conflict.

But the withdrawal of the five combat brigades that made up the "surge" is based less on conditions in Iraq than on the simple unavailability of fresh troops. In April, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates reluctantly extended troop deployments in Iraq from 12 to 15 months in order to maintain troop levels at about 162,000. At the time, Gates declared that the extension of combat tours "upholds our commitment to decide when to begin any drawdown of U.S. forces in Iraq solely based on conditions on the ground."

Since then, however, senior military leaders - including Adm. Mike Mullen, incoming chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - have acknowledged that the surge will effectively end in April because there are no fresh replacements. What Odierno provided yesterday were fresh details on the rate of withdrawal, which many in Congress have urged be done more quickly and with deeper reductions.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/world/iraq/bal-te.iraqwar18aug18,0,972933.story?track=rss

[Arrian]

Hmm, I do have a few minutes yet, so... some quick googling:

Petraeus preparing for end of 'surge'
Associated Press
August 16, 2007

BAGHDAD - The top American commander in Iraq said Wednesday that he is preparing recommendations on troop reductions before he returns to Washington next month for a report to Congress. He predicted the U.S. footprint in Iraq would have to be "a good bit smaller" by next summer.

But Gen. David Petraeus cautioned against a quick or significant U.S. withdrawal that could surrender "the gains we have fought so hard to achieve."

He declined to offer details on the upcoming recommendation. The report, expected next month, is seen as a potential road map for U.S. military and diplomatic policies in Iraq.

The general, who wrote the Army's book on counterinsurgency, said he and his staff are "trying to do the battlefield geometry right now" as he prepared his troop-level recommendations.

"We know that the surge has to come to an end. There's no question about that. I think everyone understands that by about a year or so from now we've got to be a good bit smaller than we are right now.

"The question is how do you do that ... so that you can retain the gains we have fought so hard to achieve and so you can keep going. Again, we are not at all satisfied where we are right now. We have made some progress, but again there's still a lot of hard work to be done against the different extremist elements that do threaten the new Iraq."

-Arrian

[Shrapnel12]

Originally posted by Ramo
And I'm harping on this because it's an important point. Arguing that the opposition is making bad faith arguments and are really traitorous scum who don't want us to succeed is a really beyond the pale, and seriously degrades political discourse.

Ya but many of us really think it's true, just like many anti-war people question the motives for Bush sending us to war in the first place. How is accusing Bush of going to war for his own selfish motives degrade political discourse any less? For the record, I think he went to war for unscrupulous motives myself, but the point remains valid. Truth is the failure of the war is as important to the future of the Democratic party as the success of the war is important to the Republican party. How can you not be suspicious of their motives (both parties that is)?