Surge is a Success!!

[fisher]

"Freedom ain't free" is a justification for being a world bully. You fight only when you have no other choice. Preemptive war is the biggest crock of doublespeak ever invented. Iraq did not ever threaten our peaceful existence.

The entire middle East and the radical islamists were, are and will continue to be a threat to our "peaceful" existence. By taking the conflict to the Middle East, it keeps it away from our shores (although we will inevitably be hit at some point--no way to totally avoid terrorism in this day and age).

By the way, when have we ever really been at peace. We have been fighting wars and confronting threats for the last 230 years.

Pacifism and isolationism won't work against the threat we face from radical islam. Those guys want the US and every other Western government wiped off the face of the planet to be replaced by Islamic law (which would make all of us wish for a government run by conservative Christians).

Keeping to ourselves will not work like it once did. The Oceans are no longer a barrier that protect us.

 

[Uncle Timmy]

You mean how we instilled a Sunni strongman and turned a blind eye to his incredulous human rights violations to allow him time to restore order, while the Kurds broke off from Iraq to establish Kurdistan? Just like you planned, eh comrade?

Well I got news for you ?an increased cooperation with the Sunnis (and away from the central gov?t) is the direction we are slowly shifting US policy towards.

There is no indication that a democratic, unified Iraq (the ultimate strategic goal of ?the Surge?) is going to be a reality anytime soon, if ever. That is now obvious. The jury is still out, however, on whether we have inadvertently fueled a civil war by allowing both sides the breathing room to arm and prepare. Time will tell.

It seems that those who are claiming the surge to be a success either are lowering the bar (for political or other reasons), or simply can't tell the difference between tactics and strategy. Besides, a huge percentage of the reduction in violence is attributable to the alliances we have made with Sunni groups, not the Surge.

The Surge was never intended to provide ?a tenuous, temporary reduction in violence in some parts of Iraq.? -as a gauge of success.

I don?t pay much attention to headlines, I would suggest you don?t either.

 

[30A Skunkape]

Interesting web site with an interesting new take on 'the surge'
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2007/11/the_real_surge.php

 

[Uncle Timmy]

Interesting web site with an interesting new take on 'the surge'
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2007/11/the_real_surge.php

I don’t like that article because of one glaring omission –it fails to point out that new Iraqi Military is predominantly Shia. The new Iraqi Police forces are even more so.

The article seems to suggest that since the Iraqi military is getting stronger, things will continue to stabilize. I disagree.

Both the Iraqi Military and especially the Police act with strong sectarian bias. The Police are essentially the biggest and best armed Shia militia.

Not exactly a recipe for stability.

 

[scooterbug44]

I read the statistics and predicted the military would be running the country soon, though it is encouraging to hear they are requiting and training in such numbers.

Wondered why the US is paying millions to build up an Iraqi military. Why aren't they paying for it? I understand us paying for our troops etc, but why for theirs too?

 

[Uncle Timmy]

Hey 6th, here?s what you wrote back in June:

I never said the surge was an end itself, which you characterize it as. It is a means to an end. We stabilize Iraq, we have a little more bargaining power. We negotiate a compromise from a position of strength. I believe we go with the surge to stabilize the region, and negotiate some semblance of a representative government.

Not much movement towards a ?Representative Government? in Iraq yet. Tick, tock. tick, tock. Looks like you are running out of time to salvage a democratic Iraq.

Plan B, anyone?

 

[Uncle Timmy]

And here?s what I observed back in June:

The inherent flaw within this recent hooplah of optimism regarding the Surge is that achieving a brief improvement in the security condition in some parts of the country is irrelevant to what the Surge is supposed to do????.namely offer a long term political solution to the sectarian tensions tearing Iraq apart.

The instability didn?t create the sectarian tensions, rather the sectarian tensions created the instability.

The Surge does not address the core issue, and therefore will not work in the long term.

I stand by my original proposal. (See previous posts) Interestingly, I have seen developments in the recent months which move us in this direction -

We have been cutting cease fire deals with the Sunnis in Al Anbar province ?interesting development, I say we cut a deal with them in the WHOLE country.

Prophetic, no? Now that time has shown that this strategy (on a regional scale) has been very successful, I think we ought to expand it.

 

[Bob]

The entire middle East and the radical islamists were, are and will continue to be a threat to our "peaceful" existence. By taking the conflict to the Middle East, it keeps it away from our shores (although we will inevitably be hit at some point--no way to totally avoid terrorism in this day and age).

By the way, when have we ever really been at peace. We have been fighting wars and confronting threats for the last 230 years.

Pacifism and isolationism won't work against the threat we face from radical islam. Those guys want the US and every other Western government wiped off the face of the planet to be replaced by Islamic law (which would make all of us wish for a government run by conservative Christians).

Keeping to ourselves will not work like it once did. The Oceans are no longer a barrier that protect us.

What's a trillion dollars to oust a strongman? Freedom ain't free. We need to pay constantly by identifying enemies, and going after them. That's the foreign policy of a spoiled kid.

 

[rehdrahk]

I read the statistics and predicted the military would be running the country soon, though it is encouraging to hear they are requiting and training in such numbers.

Wondered why the US is paying millions to build up an Iraqi military. Why aren't they paying for it? I understand us paying for our troops etc, but why for theirs too?

History repeats itself once again .... All we need to do now is put a face on this new army so we know who to attack in a few years ;(

Didn't we initially help build up both Osama and Saddam armies before we attacked them?

Look, third world countries such as these do not have the means to build up their own armies, that is where we come into play.

And if we want to continue fighting in wars, we need enemies, and since there is really no real chance that we will be declaring war on any European country we must look elsewhere.

You think the Middle East is bad, google US intervention in Africa ... it is the next major battlefield!

 

[Andy A]

Hey 6th, here?s what you wrote back in June:



Not much movement towards a ?Representative Government? in Iraq yet. Tick, tock. tick, tock. Looks like you are running out of time to salvage a democratic Iraq.

Plan B, anyone?

Look no further than your own backyard. We have been at it for over two hundred years and still don't have it right. (Witness the mess with OUR Congress and Administration) Yet, you expect the Iraqis to do it in less than two years? I don't think so. Tick tock tick tock. Give it some time and what else can you do anyway?