So. It wasn't the Surge after all.

[Zkribbler]

Bob Woodward is coming out with a new book, which he'll be discussing on 60 Minutes on Sunday and on Larry King Live on Monday.

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.

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?

[Sirotnikov]

Unless he can prove beyond doubt that the surge had zero effect, the point is moot.

He also has to show a proximity between dates where the method was employed and the lowered violence, which would be very difficult.

I'm gonna guess and say that he doesn't say that's it's NOT the surge, but says that it's not ONLY the surge, and the whole thing is a new spin by Iraq critics.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
I'm gonna guess and say that he doesn't say that's it's NOT the surge, but says that it's not ONLY the surge, and the whole thing is a new spin by Iraq critics.

It's more likely a misquote by me.

BTW: You failed to mention the Sunni Awakening, which was already having successes when the Surge began. I'm surprised and disappointed that our leaders do not give any credit to our brave Iraqi allies who stood up to al Qaeda and drove it out of their neighborhoods.

I recently heard one of the Sons of Iraq being interviewed. He said that 18 of his family members were killed by al Qaeda during the Awakening. That's a horrible price to pay.

[DaShi]

I find it surprising that the burden of proof has been on whether the surge worked. There's clearly enough evidence that points to other factors that had an effect at reducing the violence. Take them away and what did the surge actually do (other than give the bushies something to point at and say "See that, I did that.").

[Sirotnikov]

which was already having successes when the Surge began

well i tend to see it as part of the same strategical move, but you're right.

Take them away and what did the surge actually do (other than give the bushies something to point at and say "See that, I did that.").

I think these factors actually work really well togther.

If you increase intelligence without having enough forces for on ground target acquisition as well as patrol and security, then the intelligence is uesless.

I think it's a combinaiton of the 3 and you can't really seperate it and say that only one of them worked.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

well i tend to see it as part of the same strategical move, but you're right.


I think these factors actually work really well togther.

If you increase intelligence without having enough forces for on ground target acquisition as well as patrol and security, then the intelligence is uesless.

I think it's a combinaiton of the 3 and you can't really seperate it and say that only one of them worked.

But how much did the surge really do? Maybe it was completely unnecessary, as some claim. Just a little extra push that could have been more useful somewhere else. Too many people seem to think that it alone solved the problem.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by DaShi
I find it surprising that the burden of proof has been on whether the surge worked. There's clearly enough evidence that points to other factors that had an effect at reducing the violence. Take them away and what did the surge actually do (other than give the bushies something to point at and say "See that, I did that.").

Let me give you an example from Israel's experience.
There has been a sharp decrease in successful terrorist attacks against Israel since 2002.

Some try to claim it is only due to "defensive shield" (a largescale IDF incursion into the west bank city centers in 2002).

Some try to claim it has nothing to do with the operation, and has to do with improved intelligence methods, and new tactical concepts.

Some claim that it is only due to the security fence that has been built since.

It actually encompasses all of those reasons.
The incursion was a very strong and successful hit on terrorists. This lowered their heads, and the continued operational and intelligence changes made sure they won't recover.

The security fence has downgraded their ability to launch attacks to the minimum, and is the only change of sucuring our border once we withdraw.

[Berzerker]

I supported the surge but I cant say it worked yet, that depends on Iraqis getting their act together. If a civil war or dictatorship is what we find in 5 years, it failed.

[SlowwHand]

Iraqis getting their act together has nada to do with the success of the surge. It gave them the opportunity, but they're notorious for missing opportunities.

[Kirnwaffen]

It's all tied together at the end of the day. On the one hand, it's never a bad thing to have more assets on the ground (tactically speaking, anyway). On the other, the surge probably would not have had a lot of success if not coupled with the "Anbar Awakening". Woodward's claim is a joke. We've long had the intelligence networks in place in Iraq to identify terrorist leaders, just like we've had the ability to track and kill/capture them. All killing one of them does is throw the movement off for a bit.

[Grandpa Troll]

Whos this Woodward fella?

Just another writer trying to make a name

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
Woodward's claim is a joke. We've long had the intelligence networks in place in Iraq to identify terrorist leaders, just like we've had the ability to track and kill/capture them. All killing one of them does is throw the movement off for a bit.

Maybe it's something more than just HUMINT networks, like that kickass cell-phone-using-see-through-walls-anywhere-anytime gizmo in the new Batman.

[Berzerker]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Iraqis getting their act together has nada to do with the success of the surge. It gave them the opportunity, but they're notorious for missing opportunities.

it has everything to do with it, the goal is "democratic" nation building and whatever passes for unification, not a temporary lull in the violence.

[-Jrabbit]

Originally posted by Grandpa Troll
Whos this Woodward fella?

Just another writer trying to make a name

Um, investigative reporter for the Washington Post who (with Carl Bernstein) documented the Watergate break-in and cover-up by the Nixon administration. They co-wrote the definitive book on the topic, "All The President's Men."

Woodward-Bernstein are rightly credited by many with toppling Nixon from power and legitimizing/popularizing investigative journalism in the 70s. Woodward has remained quite active in the field over the years.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit

Um, investigative reporter for the Washington Post who (with Carl Bernstein) documented the Watergate break-in and cover-up by the Nixon administration. They co-wrote the definitive book on the topic, "All The President's Men."

Woodward-Bernstein are rightly credited by many with toppling Nixon from power and legitimizing/popularizing investigative journalism in the 70s. Woodward has remained quite active in the field over the years.

I am going to catch-and-release you...

Next?