Is the surge a success?

[Dinner]

Is bringing the civilian death toll down to 2006 levels considered a "success"?

Again, the surge was supposed to allow a political "breathing room" for consolidation of Iraq's govt, but the major points of the benchmarks have NOT been met....unless you believe the WH.

Government Benchmarks: 2 of 8 Accomplished

1. Perform constitutional review. Unmet

2. Enact de-Ba’athification reform. Partial

4. Form semi-autonomous regions. Unmet

5. Hold provincial elections. Unmet

6. Address amnesty. Unmet

8. Establish support for Baghdad Security Plan. Met

16. Ensure minority rights in Iraqi legislature. Met

18. Keep Iraqi Security Forces free from partisan interference. Unmet


Security Benchmarks: 1 of 8 Accomplished

7. Disarm militias. Unmet

9. Provide military support in Baghdad. Partial

10. Empower Iraqi Security Forces. Partial

11. Ensure impartial law enforcement. Unmet

12. Establish support for Baghdad Security Plan by Maliki government. Unmet

13. Reduce sectarian violence. Partial

14. Establish neighborhood security in Baghdad. Met

15. Increase independent Iraqi Security Focres. Unmet


Economic Benchmarks: 0 of 2 Accomplished

3. Implement oil legislation. Unmet

17. Distribute Iraqi resources equitably. Partial

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/01/benchmark.html

[Kidlicious]

There's still more than 35% unemployment. That's so incompetent it's hard to believe it's not intentional.

[Ramo]

In related news, our presence in Iraq has become so politically untenable that Maliki explicitly endorsed Obama's timetable for withdrawal.

[Patroklos]

Is bringing the civilian death toll down to 2006 levels considered a "success"?

June 2006 = 870

June 2008 = 450

http://icasualties.org/oif/

While the level of success in reference to the benchmarks is up for debate, you blatant lie in the first line of your post means we should all disregard this thread until a serious poster opens a serious thread.

Oerdin

[Elok]

I imagine you meant ?

Anyway, this thread inspired me to look up the short-lived soft drink on Wikipedia. I didn't know that nasty crap is still selling in Norway...

[Rufus T. Firefly]

The ultimate point of the surge was not to produce a lower level of violence in Iraq. The point of the surge was to increase troop levels temporarily so that the Iraqis could get their house in order. The New Improved Stable Iraqi Government (now with a fresh lilac scent!) was supposed to have been standing on its own two feet by April.

So by that metric, the surge is not a success.

If we were to withdraw all the surge troops, and violence stayed at the level its at now, you could say that the surge accomplished something-- though that wouldn't be the same as "succeeding," and at any rate we can't know that yet

But right now, the only "success" associated with the surge is that it's successfully shown that everybody who criticized Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld back in 2003 for not sending in enough troops has been proven right.

[Ben Kenobi]

While the level of success in reference to the benchmarks is up for debate, you blatant lie in the first line of your post means we should all disregard this thread until a serious poster opens a serious thread.

QFMFT.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Ramo
In related news, our presence in Iraq has become so politically untenable that Maliki explicitly endorsed Obama's timetable for withdrawal.

He was motivated by political reasons to do that. Elections might be held later this year, and it looks good to crack down on American presence in Iraq.

But right now, the only "success" associated with the surge is that it's successfully shown that everybody who criticized Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld back in 2003 for not sending in enough troops has been proven right.

Wasn't that a bit obvious? Either you do it all the way or you don't... Isn't that one of the lessons of Vietnam? Military advisors postulated rather early on that to maintain a status-quo in Vietnam, a million troops would be required instead of the half million that were used instead at its peak moment. I sense a clear analogy today.

Americans are in general quite apt to going to war, but their quick war-weariness is equally charactaristic. Contrary to peoples who endure wars many times in their lives, Americans want a quick victory, after which they can all pat themselves on the back congratulating on how they showed those ragheads what US military power can do.

In that respect anti-war protestors are a bit counterproductive, because without them, more troops could might have been sent, and things might be settled quicker, but of course that's speculating. If a leader goes to war, he should at least have the guts to go all the way. There's no room for half-hearted projects, especially if you go all the way to mislead and deceive the entire world and, not to forget, your own citizens who still do the dying out there.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Patroklos


June 2006 = 870

June 2008 = 450

http://icasualties.org/oif/

While the level of success in reference to the benchmarks is up for debate, you blatant lie in the first line of your post means we should all disregard this thread until a serious poster opens a serious thread.

Oerdin

First of all your own source doesn't back your numbers. Second of all it's clear you are cherry picking.

Actual death tolls from your source for civilian deaths (what we've been discussing).

Jan-06	590   Jan-08     485
Feb-06	688   Feb-08	564
Mar-06	901   Mar-08	819
Apr-06	808   Apr-08	631
May-06	969   May-08	396
Jun-07	1148 May-08	396

http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx

So to sum it up two months this year were significantly less while 4 months were very close to the same. It seems very clear to me that you cherry picked your one date. The basic message stands though that the over all level of civilian deaths is about where it was in 2006 and the "benchmarks for success" (as the white house calls them) are still largely unmet.

[Ramo]

Originally posted by Traianvs


He was motivated by political reasons to do that.

If you read closely, I wrote that in the sentence you quoted..

That was my point. Anti-American groups, particularly the Sadrists are gonna make out like bandits in the upcoming provincial elections, so Maliki is paying appropriate deference to the mood of his electorate.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Traianvs
Wasn't that a bit obvious? Either you do it all the way or you don't... Isn't that one of the lessons of Vietnam? Military advisors postulated rather early on that to maintain a status-quo in Vietnam, a million troops would be required instead of the half million that were used instead at its peak moment. I sense a clear analogy today.
[sic]
In that respect anti-war protestors are a bit counterproductive, because without them, more troops could might have been sent, and things might be settled quicker, but of course that's speculating. If a leader goes to war, he should at least have the guts to go all the way. There's no room for half-hearted projects, especially if you go all the way to mislead and deceive the entire world and, not to forget, your own citizens who still do the dying out there.

Less troops were sent b/c that's what Rumsfeld wanted, in oppositon to just about every general. If you think that rummy was listening to the anti-war crowd at all, I've got some subprime loans to offer you.

[Ben Kenobi]

How is this a return to 2006 levels?

May-06 969
May-08 396

Patroklos 1 Oerdin 0.

[Dinner]

Read please. Two of the six months showed significant improvement and four were about the same. Averages Ben.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Ramo


If you read closely, I wrote that in the sentence you quoted..

That was my point. Anti-American groups, particularly the Sadrists are gonna make out like bandits in the upcoming provincial elections, so Maliki is paying appropriate deference to the mood of his electorate.

Ah yes

Originally posted by Theben


Less troops were sent b/c that's what Rumsfeld wanted, in oppositon to just about every general. If you think that rummy was listening to the anti-war crowd at all, I've got some subprime loans to offer you.

Why would Rumsfeld oppose sending more troops then? I might not know the ins and outs, but perhaps he and his cronies wanted to appease the pop by not going all-out in Iraq. There's a lot of people with no military insights who think airplane bombing will do most of the work and who want to limit the amount of troops deployed because they might die out there.

Of course he didn't 'listen' to the anti-war crowd, but I can imagine there would be more protest if more troops were sent. In Vietnam presidents constantly assured that they wouldn't escalate the war by sending more troops (although they did it anyway). Why else would you say and do such a thing if it weren't for public opinion concerns? Especially if you need broad support to engage in war, such as the one in Iraq.. Rumsfeld wanted to give the impression to the people it would be a quick and easy war, that the Americans would be out of there in no time. Funny thing is he probably began to believe that himself. I can't see any other reason why he would oppose sending more troops when all his generals thought otherwise.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Read please. Two of the six months showed significant improvement and four were about the same. Averages Ben.

Average deaths per month:

2006 (to June): 782
2006 (July to Dec): 1,978
2006 (Year to Dec): 1,380
2008 (to June): 545

You're original claim of 2006 levels is clearly wrong. The rate is less than half. Even if narrowed to the first half of 2006 you are wrong. Unless a decline of 30% on the original level is considered the same.