The "surge" is a success?

[Patroklos]

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.

I must be wrong then, there have been a few Iraq threads recently and they all kind of morph together after awhile

In any case you will note they are deliberatly vague on why the surge must end. If its money there are plenty of wiz bang R&D things we can raid. Only 15% of the Army is in Iraq at any one time, that can be changed. And while 15 month deployments are now the norm for new troops in theatre, most of the Army has yet to endure them or recieved orders to that effect (unless you think 100% of the Army has rotated to Iraq since Febuary).

Again, it is a give take, all the Pentagon is saying is that operating like we are right now, we will have to draw down in April.

[Shrapnel12]

Originally posted by 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:


http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/wor...tory?track=rss

Is it just me or does this timeline for a soldier to be in combat seem rather short? Can anyone give me info on how long tours in Vietnam were? Didn't soldiers fight much longer under worse conditions in WWII?

[GePap]

This thread looks even dumber now that the new intelligence report about Iraq is out.

But I guess 16 different US intelligence agencies are not knowledgeable enough about Iraq......

[DanS]

I disagree. The intelligence report notes...

There have been measurable but uneven improvements in Iraq’s security situation since our last National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq in January 2007. The steep escalation of rates of violence has been checked for now, and overall attack levels across Iraq have fallen during seven of the last nine weeks. Coalition forces, working with Iraqi forces, tribal elements, and some Sunni insurgents, have reduced al-Qa’ida in Iraq’s (AQI) capabilities, restricted its freedom of movement, and denied it grassroots support in some areas.

It then goes on to talk about the political situation, which, while important, has less to do with our military response -- the surge. Further, with regard to "redeployment"...

We assess that changing the mission of Coalition forces from a primarily counterinsurgency and stabilization role to a primary combat support role for Iraqi forces and counterterrorist operations to prevent AQI from establishing a safehaven would erode security gains achieved thus far. The impact of a change in mission on Iraq’s political and security environment and throughout the region probably would vary in intensity and suddenness of onset in relation to the rate and scale of a Coalition redeployment. Developments within the Iraqi communities themselves will be decisive in determining political and security trajectories.
• Recent security improvements in Iraq, including success against AQI, have depended significantly on the close synchronization of conventional counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations. A change of mission that interrupts that synchronization would place security improvements at risk.

In other words, at least the surge is working better than the alternative proposed and if the approach is changed, security will suffer.

[GePap]

You have to be kidding me!

Basically you are claiming that a treament that cuts a fever from 105 to 104 is a success - while whistling and ignoring the fact that the person remains horribly sick.

[DanS]

That's a grossly strained analogy.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS
That's a grossly strained analogy.

The ability to provide basic services around Iraq has no significantly improved in the last 4 years.

Civilians deaths might be down from the hight of 2006, but remain far greater than those before the Samarra bombing, which had been going up gradually for 2.5 years anyways.

The Iraqi political system created in 2005 enshrined secterianism as the main foundation of the current Iraqi governmental structure, and the current particular government is falling apart.

All one can say outside of Anbar is that the average Iraqi is safer than they were in 2006 (unless you are a Yazidi). That's it.

Congrats.

[DanS]

The ability to provide basic services around Iraq has no significantly improved in the last 4 years.

If you have a point that's relevant to this thread -- which is about the surge -- I would be happy to hear it.

[Patroklos]

That's a grossly strained analogy.

Are you suprised given the source?

Give the tyke a break, he's doing his best.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS


If you have a point that's relevant to this thread -- which is about the surge -- I would be happy to hear it.

and this is why you and Pati have always been wrong about Iraq.

The "surge" is a one time tactic, which by itself will do nothing. Wow, more troops equals less violence! Never would have though. Did you already forget that this "surge" only brought tropps back up to levels we had then in 2004? Heck, there have been previous times in Iraq when we had more troops there.

this entire thread is irrelevant because a "surge" is meaningless without political progress. And you can;t show any political progress.

So instead, you (like Pati) ignore the political part of this and focus solely on trying to call this short time thing " a success." IN two years this "surge" will be nothing more than a brief period long forgotten, just like every previous troop surge we had in Iraq has been.

The only reason this "surge" is even called that is because the political situation in the US is so against this war that having the president go back up to 2004 troops levels becomes some big show. The pure intellectual bankruptness of that view is astounding.

But this is you and Pati, so why am I not surprised?

[DanS]

Originally posted by GePap
The "surge" is a one time tactic, which by itself will do nothing.

The surge includes fighting a classic counterinsurgency as well as an increase in troop strength. Even if the troop strength is drawn down somewhat from its highs, the counterinsurgency remains.

The classic counterinsurgency was a new strategy introduced earlier in the year by General Petraeus, who is among the few counterinsurgency experts/intellectuals that the US has. So far, a case can be made that the surge is working. I haven't seen anybody seriously argue the opposite in this thread.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS
The surge includes fighting a classic counterinsurgency as well as an increase in troop strength. Even if the troop strength is drawn down somewhat from its highs, the counterinsurgency remains.

The classic counterinsurgency was a new strategy introduced earlier in the year by General Petraeus, who is among the few counterinsurgency experts that the US has.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/08/iraq.petraeus/index.html

No military solution to Iraq, U.S. general says
POSTED: 1:48 a.m. EST, March 9, 2007


BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The new commander of U.S. troops in Iraq has warned that military force alone will not be enough to quell the country's violent insurgency.

Speaking publicly Thursday for the first time since taking charge in Baghdad last month, Gen. David Petraeus said military action was necessary to improve security in Iraq but "not sufficient" to end violence altogether.

"There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq," Petraeus told a news conference, adding that political negotiations were crucial to forging any lasting peace.

Petraeus said talks should include "some of those who have felt the new Iraq did not have a place for them," and said a key challenge facing Iraq's government was to identify "reconcilable" militant groups and bring them inside the political process.

Petraeus took charge of the 140,000-strong U.S. force in Iraq last month. Since a successful invasion in 2003, which quickly overthrew Saddam Hussein's regime, U.S. forces have become bogged down by a combination of attacks by terrorist groups such as al Qaeda in Iraq and bloody sectarian fighting between Sunni and Shiite Iraqis.

On Thursday Petraeus said he saw no need to bolster troop numbers beyond reinforcements announced by the White House for a renewed effort to improve security in Baghdad and Anbar province. But he warned those troops committed to the campaign would likely remain in place "beyond the summer."

"This endeavor will take months -- not days or weeks to implement," he said.

[DanS]

What he says contradicts no questions and issues that I have raised in this thread.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS
What he says contradicts no questions and issues that I have raised in this thread.

Jesus...

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

The military situation in Iraq has imporved slightly, the political situation has worsened.

Is the current strategy of the administration brought us any closer to a successful end?

Oh, I forgot, you aren;t asking if the surge is helping us to bring about final victory in Iraq, only if the narrow short term tactical goals of the surge have been met....

[DanS]

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