Is the surge a success?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ramo


Late 2005/early 2006 is the period (i.e. that just preceding the al-Askariyah Mosque bombing) that the past few months' violence most resembles. It looks like a ridiculous bout of nitpicking to criticize Oerdin over that comment.

Parochial it may be, but nitpicking? I say no, given that he was the one making a big deal out defending it against two other people.

[Ben Kenobi]

You wrote that as if it were a counterargument to what you quoted. It isn't.

BAM. Saying that don't make it so.

[SlowwHand]

For ‘surge’ troops, pride and doubt

Soldiers who were part of the "surge" are heartened by security improvements but unsure if their hard-won gains will hold. Full story:

[Ramo]

Parochial it may be, but nitpicking? I say no, given that he was the one making a big deal out defending it against two other people.

It looks like Oerdin got defensive after being accused of making a "blatant lie." Imprecise, confusing language for sure (with a convenient graph to demonstrate what he meant), but everyone jumping on him was a bit harsh...

BAM. Saying that don't make it so.

I can rebut what you posted by quoting exactly what I wrote earlier. It's rather remarkable...

[Felch]

Originally posted by Dauphin
Parochial it may be, but nitpicking? I say no, given that he was the one making a big deal out defending it against two other people.

I agree. He wasn't dealing in vague generalities. He cited facts, and those facts contradicted his conclusion. He was wrong, and when people are wrong, other people will correct them. Why defend his BS?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ramo


It looks like Oerdin got defensive after being accused of making a "blatant lie." Imprecise, confusing language for sure (with a convenient graph to demonstrate what he meant), but everyone jumping on him was a bit harsh...

He could have just clarified what he meant rather than defending something he didn't mean, if he in fact didn't mean what he wrote at the time.

[Patroklos]

Again, it's clear that the pattern of violence in recent months most resembles a period in late 2005 and early 2006, not the much lower levels in early 2005, or 2004, or 2003 (as the graph he posted shows).

Jun-08 373
May-08 396
Apr-08 631
Mar-08 819
Feb-08 564
Jan-08 485

TOTAL = 3268

Apr-06 808
Mar-06 901
Feb-06 688
Jan-06 590
Dec-05 344
Nov-05 592

TOTAL = 3923

I figured youhad already done the math, but I guess not. Oerdin is STILL wrong. We can go back to corresponding months, but that would be stupid on all levels.

Apr-08 631
Mar-08 819
Feb-08 564
Jan-08 485
Dec-07 476
Nov-07 471

TOTAL = 3446

And Oerdin is STILL wrong.

[Arrian]

Some of you remind me of those "My sweet 16" girls crying because they got a Land Rover instead of a Ferrarri.

Rummy promised a Ferrarri, and delivered a Yugo. If we want to do silly analogies, I can play too.

Or we can look at this holistically. The Surge was a tactic designed to improve security (success, though of course there is still quite a bit of violence) so that Iraqis could work some very tricky things out politically (unclear). So, one can say both of the following things:

1) The Surge was a success wrt improving security; and
2) The political goals that need to be accomplished in order for the overarching mission to be successful have still not been met and may never be met. The mission may very well still fail.

There are still a bunch of things that need to go right in order for Iraq to avoid backsliding into civil war. I agree that things are (FINALLY!) moving in the right direction, but I obviously am very, very skeptical about just how much of that movement is sustainable. Security improvement w/o political progress may simply be temporary.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Is it the fault of the gardener if the seed fails?

Setting aside the fact that this analogy is pretty bad, yes.

We invaded another country and got ourselves involved in a nationbuilding excercise. We chose the seeds. We chose the soil and climate. We chose the fertilizer. We did this without properly researching anything, but we weren't concerned. We would make the plants grow by sheer force of will!

What happens when you plant seeds in soil with the wrong PH, in a climate adverse to the plant, and apply the wrong fertilizer? Is it the fault of the seeds that the plant dies?

-Arrian

[Patroklos]

I guess I should say the surge is working vice has worked. In any case, the OP is hopelessly flawed, perhaps Ramo can start a serious thread.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Patroklos
His comment was very specific, he compared 2006 to now (2008).

Jun-08 373
May-08 396
Apr-08 631
Mar-08 819
Feb-08 564
Jan-08 485

TOTAL = 3268

Jun-06 738
May-06 969
Apr-06 808
Mar-06 901
Feb-06 688
Jan-06 590

TOTAL = 4724

You are using civilian and military deaths where as i said civilian deaths. I even quoted from your own source Patty. Now, I know you are being deliberately deceptive.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Patroklos

Apr-06 808
Mar-06 901
Feb-06 688
Jan-06 590
Dec-05 344
Nov-05 592

TOTAL = 3923


Apr-08 631
Mar-08 819
Feb-08 564
Jan-08 485
Dec-07 476
Nov-07 471

TOTAL = 3446

And Oerdin is STILL wrong.

Now you are just being an ass clown. I didn't say identical I said about the same and clearly they are roughly about the same. Not huge differences, certainly not an order of magnitude different. ~500.

No one claimed the surge had no effect but instead what was questioned was the assuration that the surge had some amazing, indisputable success which was absolutely undeniable. Clearly this is not so for the first half year of the surge.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Arrian


Setting aside the fact that this analogy is pretty bad, yes.

We invaded another country and got ourselves involved in a nationbuilding excercise. We chose the seeds. We chose the soil and climate. We chose the fertilizer. We did this without properly researching anything, but we weren't concerned. We would make the plants grow by sheer force of will!

What happens when you plant seeds in soil with the wrong PH, in a climate adverse to the plant, and apply the wrong fertilizer? Is it the fault of the seeds that the plant dies?

-Arrian

So you're saying that once we took Hussein, which I still maintain was warranted, we should have left.
I can almost support that viewpoint, but I'll bet you
$100 that if we could turn back time and create that scenario, the same people would be whining.
Luckily for you and your $100 that we can't turn back time.

[Ben Kenobi]

We invaded another country and got ourselves involved in a nationbuilding excercise. We chose the seeds. We chose the soil and climate. We chose the fertilizer. We did this without properly researching anything, but we weren't concerned. We would make the plants grow by sheer force of will!

No, we do not choose the seeds themselves, only where they are planted. Are you saying that the Americans made the people of Iraq?

What happens when you plant seeds in soil with the wrong PH, in a climate adverse to the plant, and apply the wrong fertilizer? Is it the fault of the seeds that the plant dies?

Are you saying that the people of Iraq are naturally unable to govern themselves? That's pretty autocratic.

It takes time. I believe I even cautioned everyone that an invasion would mean a long term obligation on the part of Americans, which is why I objected to both the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Once the US went, they took on the obligation of fixing things as best as they can.

I even made an analogy to India. It took Britain 100 years to instil democracy in India. Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither will Iraq. We are seeing improvements as time goes on, which is the most important thing. Despite Oerdin's blindness, things are improving in Iraq. Just because the job is not yet done is not an excuse for saying the job cannot be done.

[Dinner]

Ben, once again you are making a strawman argument. No one has said things have not improved at all or that the surge is having no effect. Civilian deaths have declined.

What people are questioning is exactly how low civilian deaths need to go in order for it to be declared a shining example of success and we are looking at the benchmarks the White House said would be used to judge the success of the surge before the surge happened. Why is it you refuse to recognize this fact? The truth is of the 18 benchmarks the White House agreed would be used to measure the success of the surge only 3 have been accomplished.

Now the White House is saying they don't want to use those 18 benchmarks any more and that smells like they are changing the definition of what qualifies as a success so that they can declare victory even though they failed to accomplish their own benchmarks.