The "surge" is a success?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by germanos
surge?

It's a full bloody mess that needs a

war council

(clickable quote)

It's not clickable for me...

[Dr Strangelove]

In the month of August 2007 there were 1800 civilian deaths in Iraq due to the fighting. Is this another indicator of the success of the surge?

[Kuciwalker]

As an isolated number that's completely meaningless. WTG.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
In the month of August 2007 there were 1800 civilian deaths in Iraq due to the fighting. Is this another indicator of the success of the surge?

No. Success for the surge can only be measured in how it is or is not achieving its purpose, which is to buy time during which the various factions of Iraqis are to seek national reconciliation.

Congress set out 18 goals. The GAO is reporting that 3 of them are being met.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
As an isolated number that's completely meaningless. WTG.

1800 dead Iraqi civilians dead from political violence is meaningless?

[Kuciwalker]

Yes.

Sigh. I can hear the sophistry a mile away. Don't embarrass yourself, GePap.

[GePap]

I am not the one saying that large numbers of dead Iraqi civilians is not a meaningful way of measuring the success of a "security operation."

Yeah. things must be really secure in Iraq now - only 1800 civilians died this month from political violence (only 1300 if we leave out the massive attach against the Yazidi). I mean, at this rate, only about 14,000 Iraqi civilians will dies this year!

[Kuciwalker]

I am not the one saying that large numbers of dead Iraqi civilians is not a meaningful way of measuring the success of a "security operation."

Of course it isn't.

[GePap]

And the winner for most utterly idiotic statement in the thread goes to:

drum roll

KUCIWALKER

CONGRATULATIONS!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Don't embarrass yourself, GePap.

I warned you

[Kuciwalker]

It's pretty obvious that the absolute number of deaths is meaningless. The important statistics [for evaluating the success or failure of the surge] involve the change from before.

[GePap]

What, you want an even bigger prize? The jackass award? The grand certificate of cluelessness? A triumphal arch to mendacity?

Oh, I forgot the Kuci approved methods of measuring the success of an operation meant to increase the security of Iraqi civilians:

Number of stalls Katie Couric can visit in an Iraqi market
Number of cheap rugs that can be bought by senators
The size of KBR served burgers at camp Anaconda.
The number of bathroom TV's not tuned to news about Iraq.

Yup, measuring the security in Iraq by the number of people getting killed is just wrong..... Next time I check how secure my neighborhood is, the last thing I will look at is the number of violent crimes, because it is such a meaningless measurement - I should check the lenght of average lawns.

Of course, given your past record of making comments about Iraq, as demonstrated by the past threads linked to, how could I have ever doubted your clear "genius"?

[Kuciwalker]

Yup, measuring the security in Iraq by the number of people getting killed is just wrong

No, measuring the absolute number of deaths during the period a specific security operation is in place is just wrong; you have to measure the change from before.

This should be blatantly obvious.

[Kuciwalker]

Of course, given your past record of making comments about Iraq, as demonstrated by the past threads linked to, how could I have ever doubted your clear "genius"?

I'm not claiming to be a genius, just marginally intelligent (which is apparently better than you).

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I'm not claiming to be a genius, just marginally intelligent (which is apparently better than you).

Yup, I am so clueless, which is why my posts before this war even begun about what could be expected were so wrong.....

OH, WAIT..... I was right. Silly me. Must be cause I be such a dummy.