So. It wasn't the Surge after all.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Re: So. It wasn't the Surge after all.

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Woodward is saying that the Surge is not the reason for the recent upturn of America's fortunes in Iraq. Rather, the U.S. has a new intelligence gathering method, which has been allowing us to pinpoint the location of al Qaeda leaders, of insurgent leaders and of militia leaders. And because of this, we've been able to take them out.

£10 says the real reason was the tribal leaders in Sunni areas getting disgruntled with the insurgent factions and marginalising them, leading to better relations with the US military in the insurgents heartlands.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
DaShi, just so we're clear, I would have withdrawn the troops the day after Hussein was hung. Ok? THIS soldier wants to give them a better life. I say they don't care enough to take the offer. The point of it is, we're sitting here with nothing to lose. Here's someone that did lose. Should we take a vote among the people that matter? The people that are there? Maybe that's a good idea; but like I said, I would have left Iraq to ****andfall back in it long ago. At least Viet Nam was consistent in what they asked. Iraq is bull****, to me.

So only soldiers matter. What a sad person you are.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
but like I said, I would have left Iraq to ****andfall back in it long ago. At least Viet Nam was consistent in what they asked. Iraq is bull****, to me.

That's surprising to hear. The US have been interfering in Iraq for several decades now. Clearly the country is of tremendous value to the US. So basically you should have opposed the invasion of Iraq then if Iraq doesn't mean **** to you...

[SlowwHand]

Wrong again. I would suppose you're used to that by now. I wanted Hussein taken for breaking a cease fire treaty. Papa Bush should have done it. Clinton, should have done it.

You can think what you want. We've gone over this 100 times.

[-Jrabbit]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I wanted Hussein taken for breaking a cease fire treaty. Papa Bush should have done it. Clinton, should have done it.

You can think what you want. We've gone over this 100 times.

So can we give it a rest?
Please?




(considers inevitability of death vs possibility of influencing Sloww's posting habits)
Oh, never mind. Sorry for interrupting, Sloww. Please continue.

[Dr Strangelove]

I thought the reason that violence was decreasing in Iraq was that the US was paying off ( or promising to pay off ), the leaders of Sunni militia.

Before we pat ourselves on the back though, we should realise that back in August, while the eyes of the world were turned towards Beijing and Georgia, someone bombed 3 Shiite mosques and executed some Iraqi police. I wouldn't go around shouting "Mission Accomplished" about the quest for inter-ethnic peace in Iraq just yet.

I know what the new technique is - the US tried the radical ploy of actually paying off their stoolies.

[Traianvs]

I suppose they learnt their lesson: calling for an insurgency (vs Saddam) and then leaving them to fend for themselves, and after that keeping sanctions on Iraq so civilians die massively wasn't too smart to gain the trust of the Iraqi people.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Re: So. It wasn't the Surge after all.

Originally posted by Zkribbler
I don't expect Woodward to say what this method is. But then again, if he doesn't, what is the content of the book?

Most of the book is like his other Bush at War books, about the behind the scenes political stuff. The interesting thing is the battle between the civilian government, who wanted the surge, and the Pentagon brass who really didn't think it'd work.

[Arrian]

£10 says the real reason was the tribal leaders in Sunni areas getting disgruntled with the insurgent factions and marginalising them

Yes, plus the money we paid them to help them come 'round to that position, plus the Surge.

And it remains unclear to me that it's all smooth sailing from here.

-Arrian

[DanS]

They have been publishing excerpts from the book in the WaPo. Fascinating stuff.

Basically, Bush didn't follow the advice of his Secretary of Defense and commanders and developed a back channel to Petraeus, to whom he subsequently handed the reins. Part of that process was the surge. Bush demanded victory and he didn't feel like the group of military leaders in place was giving him victory.

The question is should Bush have skirted his commanders and subsequently put a new group of guys in charge? My views on this are well known, but I admit that this is a consequential question that is tough to answer.

[DanS]

Here's the money graphic with regard to the surge. Violence in Iraq is plotted against the surge and other milestones.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/war-within/surgechart.html?hpid=topnews

[Imran Siddiqui]

re: The Book on WaPo. The excerpts are very fascinating and show the inner conflict. Would have been interesting to see what would have happened if the President listed to Gen. Casey and Gen. Abizaid and started pulling troops out instead of putting more in.

[Darius871]

Re: So. It wasn't the Surge after all.

Originally posted by Zkribbler
I don't expect Woodward to say what this method is. But then again, if he doesn't, what is the content of the book?

He's on Larry King right now and just refused to discuss it specifically, saying he also kept it out of the book because he was told disclosure would cost countless lives and he agreed. The biggest hint was direct comparison to the Manhattan Project, which might suggest it's technological in nature.

Too damned fascinating... what kind of technological solution could there be beyond run-of-the-mill Echelon-esque communication monitoring, which isn't all that revolutionary? What's the next step, a pair of "omniscience goggles" or something? WTF???

Quit teasing us Bob, I'm getting blueballs over here!

[DaShi]

The real secret is that there never was a surge.

[Grandpa Troll]

Re: Re: So. It wasn't the Surge after all.

Originally posted by Darius871




Quit teasing us Bob, I'm getting blueballs over here!

Blueballs arent fun