Quote :

"But since you've lost this, you're trying to blend the Surge and the War in order to hide behind murky data."

The Surge had predefined benchmarks for success.
Less than half of the benchmarks for success were achieved.

I don't see where your argument's coming from. If you have a problem with clearly defined measures of success, take it up with Bush, not me.

10/4/2007 12:43:34 PM

Quote :

"and then you make a post that confirms those assumptions"

Bush: "Is the surge working?"
Advisor: "Well sir, its a little more complicated than a yes or no question"
Bush: "No its cut and dry like Boone said...is it working or not? yes or no, those are the only answers"
Advisor: "Well some goals have been met but some haven't...we've had to change our strategy to adapt to the constantly changing environment"
Bush: "So...is it working or not?"

Bush or Boone? eerily similar

[Edited on October 4, 2007 at 12:47 PM. Reason : .]

10/4/2007 12:44:26 PM

^ You're continuing to defend a sinking ship...

The surge in troops has not generated a surge in progress, which was the real goal in the first place. Instead, since the surge we've seen basically "business as usual." How then can you claim that the surge is a success?

Feel free to explain how the surge has made things any better now than they were 4 months ago...

10/4/2007 1:25:39 PM

Quote :

"How then can you claim that the surge is a success?"

Ask General Petraeus...whether or not the surge is working apparently isn't a completely one-sided answer considering you've got tons of people saying its working and tons of people saying its not working

My opinion all along is that its hard to tell if its working or not and we can't completely tell right now anyway...people seem to want some immediate answer or results when its not realistic

[Edited on October 4, 2007 at 3:45 PM. Reason : .]

10/4/2007 3:41:12 PM

Quote :

"Ask General Petraeus...whether or not the surge is working apparently isn't a completely one-sided answer considering you've got tons of people saying its working and tons of people saying its not working"

No, you have tons of people saying that the old benchmarks are no longer valid. Never mind why... they just aren't.

Quote :

"My opinion all along is that its hard to tell if its working or not and we can't completely tell right now anyway...people seem to want some immediate answer or results when its not realistic"

Exactly. No proactive policy. Ever. EntTwista.

[Edited on October 4, 2007 at 4:27 PM. Reason : .]

10/4/2007 4:27:09 PM

Quote :

"Focus on minutia. Don't address the bigger picture. Take small victories and leave without answering the main question of the thread."

le sigh. Small victories has been the MO of the administration and its boosters since 2003. "Sure sectarian violence is up, yeah the Iraqis don't have power, yup over 1 million have fled the country, but Saddam is dead and we gave out soccer balls to some kids on the street yesterday." You're treading on thin ice if you trot out that logic.

Quote :

"whereas you have a good understanding of the situation...so, is the surge working or not"

I never said I had good information. True, about 2 months ago I sat in on a video teleconfrence between GEN Petraeus and LTG Austin, the XVIII Airborne Corps Commander, but that is old information and anything I did pick up in there, I sure as hell am not going to post on here. I'm not arguing if the surge is working or not, I'm arguing the point that there are measurable goals. You just want to contend that its impossible to know. I didn't realize nihilism was one of the new platforms of the neo-conservative movement.

Quote :

"^i like how boone is exempt from his namecalling (Tree-tard)"

I'm not the arbiter of name calling on this forum, but you called me out without evidence and I'm just pointing out that it is not I who is the hypocrite.

As far as GEN Petraeus' report is concerned, it was a largely realistic and guardedly optomistic response that we're turning in the right direction, but we haven't exactly built up a ton of momentum. It was, in a word, nuanced. This doesn't work well for the partisan hacks on either side of the aisle and I agree that determining the situation in Iraq is complex, but the fact that we are not omnipotent in our data does not prevent us from making judgements based on what we can see. I think 1.2 million refugees fleeing Iraq is pretty resounding evidence that things haven't going well.

A lesson you could learn from both this argument and the situation in Iraq as a whole is that, just because you refuse to admit defeat . . . doesn't mean you've won.

10/4/2007 4:28:22 PM

Quote :

" Instead, since the surge we've seen basically "business as usual.""

[NO]

10/4/2007 4:28:35 PM

It is looking more and more like the surge could be a tactical success, but a strategic failure.

10/4/2007 4:42:22 PM

JCASH how come anyone who wants the US to succeed is labelled a "neocon" by you

10/4/2007 4:47:05 PM

Hah! I have never equated the neoconservatives with success. Unwrap your mind from hard political delineation and accept that certain people don't fit the preconceived mold that you have for them. I have a very special place in my heart for neoconservatives filled with utter loathing, but that doesn’t mean that I want the US effort in Iraq to fail. Contrary to that, I believe that the neoconservative ideology and its refusal to take a realistic look at its failures in the early stages of the war set us up for the mess we’re in now.

On the other hand, how come anyone who disagrees with you wants the US to fail?

[Edited on October 4, 2007 at 4:54 PM. Reason : thx joe]

10/4/2007 4:51:04 PM

Quote :

"You just want to contend that its impossible to know. I didn't realize nihilism was one of the new platforms of the neo-conservative movement."

Were you calling me a neocon here? I thought you were. If you weren't just tell me. If you were, tell me why.

Quote :

"how come anyone who disagrees with you wants the US to fail?"

projecting defeat prematurely is pretty much wanting to fail...at minimum it certainly isnt expecting to win or even having enough faith in our country to be able to succeed...disagreeing with me has nothing to do with it

10/4/2007 4:57:31 PM

I don't make presumptions to know what people believe as a whole beyond what they post on TWW but you have expressed ideology along the neoconservative lines, and it is a self-labeled neoconservative administration whose position you are defending (even if you're not defending the administration itself).

I was making a larger comment about the administration's consistent refusal to admit bad news or to dismiss it as irrelevant. This position ruined the President's credibility by 2005 and made it exceptionally difficult for good news to be taken seriously. Couple this with the fact that the (by all accounts) sycophantic and ideologically driven staff that surrounds President Bush, and you get an organizational culture that prefers politically continent denial to the hard reality of land combat. This ignorant stubbornness has cost thousands of lives, the momentum we had in the summer of 2003, and the goodwill of the world.

The reality that I face is that two of my friends and one of my classmates from college are dead, one of the guys I work with every day will limp the rest of his life because of an IED, and thousands of other Soldiers, Marines, Airmen, and Sailors will live with debilitating injuries because of this ideological stupidity. So when you say the war cannot be quantified, I'll be god-damned if I don't see the quantifiable cost every day.

So you see Twista my insistence that progress or failure can be measured, and that we need to weigh the potential for victory against the toll in human lives and on the military as a whole (GEN Cody, Army Chief of Staff has flat out said that the Army is past the breaking point) is not defeatism, it is precisely what we owe the people we send into harms way.

[Edited on October 4, 2007 at 5:28 PM. Reason : I'm not setting myself up as a martyr or badass either, the war just isn't an abstraction to me]

10/4/2007 5:17:08 PM

Quote :

"you have expressed ideology along the neoconservative lines"

what does that even mean? i've heard so many different definitions or contexts for neocon, I'd like to know what specifically you meant...I'm not religious, I'm not registered with a particular political party, etc...so I don't know where you're coming up with your ideas

10/4/2007 5:21:50 PM

^ I think it has more to do with your defense and justification of this administration's policies that led him to say that. To be honest, it's a trivial point and not worth debating. I for one don't have the time or inclination to review TreeTwista10's posts to determine is he IS in fact a neocon.

Besides, given their track record, that's a pretty big insult to call someone a neocon... one which I don't think even TreeTwista10 deserves

Quote :

"projecting defeat prematurely is pretty much wanting to fail..."

First off, there simply is no "winning or losing" this war anymore. It's not even a war anymore. In fact, it ISN'T a war considering that no such declaration was made by Congress. It's a struggle for peace.

Winning and losing are undefinable terms in the context of Iraq. Winning implies that there is a victor and a loser. Spin it all you like, but there are a lot of people in the Middle East that want the US out of Iraq, and they are not all Al Qaida.

"Projecting defeat prematurely"... I really despise this rhetoric. People have a right to question whether success in Iraq is reasonably obtainable. It is NOT unpatriotic to do this. We're spending billions of dollars and sacrificing thousands of American lives on the notion that we "have to win the war in Iraq."

Suggesting that we should withdraw is not an admitance of defeat. It is not an act of weakness. It is not an attempt to condone the acts of terrorists, or grant them a victory...

So stop fucking saying that it is.

[Edited on October 4, 2007 at 6:06 PM. Reason : 10]

10/4/2007 6:06:27 PM

Quote :

"In fact, it ISN'T a war considering that no such declaration was made by Congress. It's a struggle for peace."

oh come on, man. youre not serious are you?





Was there no end to this conspiracy of injustice against Red Rider and his peacemaker??

10/4/2007 7:02:32 PM

So did LogicTwister give up on his "war is unquantifiable" argument or not? I don't feel like wading through the shit to figure this out.

10/4/2007 8:54:26 PM

^ Honestly I haven't got a clue why any of you are bothering to talk about it.

My take - If you're going to try and quantify progress in Iraq, then use stats that have some legitimate value. Lowering deaths 50% in one month means absolutely nothing. 3 years of continually lowering deaths by 10%... now THAT would mean something.

10/5/2007 12:13:17 PM

10/6/2007 1:51:39 PM

Al-Qaeda In Iraq Reported Crippled

Quote :

"The U.S. military believes it has dealt devastating and perhaps irreversible blows to al-Qaeda in Iraq in recent months, leading some generals to advocate a declaration of victory over the group, which the Bush administration has long described as the most lethal U.S. adversary in Iraq."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/14/AR2007101401245.html?hpid=topnews

Better Numbers
The evidence of a drop in violence in Iraq is becoming hard to dispute.

Quote :

"NEWS COVERAGE and debate about Iraq during the past couple of weeks have centered on the alleged abuses of private security firms like Blackwater USA. Getting such firms into a legal regime is vital, as we've said. But meanwhile, some seemingly important facts about the main subject of discussion last month -- whether there has been a decrease in violence in Iraq -- have gotten relatively little attention. A congressional study and several news stories in September questioned reports by the U.S. military that casualties were down. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), challenging the testimony of Gen. David H. Petraeus, asserted that 'civilian deaths have risen' during this year's surge of American forces. A month later, there isn't much room for such debate, at least about the latest figures. In September, Iraqi civilian deaths were down 52 percent from August and 77 percent from September 2006, according to the Web site icasualties.org. The Iraqi Health Ministry and the Associated Press reported similar results. U.S. soldiers killed in action numbered 43 -- down 43 percent from August and 64 percent from May, which had the highest monthly figure so far this year. The American combat death total was the lowest since July 2006 and was one of the five lowest monthly counts since the insurgency in Iraq took off in April 2004. During the first 12 days of October the death rates of Iraqis and Americans fell still further. So far during the Muslim month of Ramadan, which began Sept. 13 and ends this weekend, 36 U.S. soldiers have been reported as killed in hostile actions. That is remarkable given that the surge has deployed more American troops in more dangerous places and that in the past al-Qaeda has staged major offensives during Ramadan. Last year, at least 97 American troops died in combat during Ramadan. Al-Qaeda tried to step up attacks this year, U.S. commanders say -- so far, with stunningly little success [emphasis added]."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/13/AR2007101301071.html

10/15/2007 1:54:09 PM

If it's an important question then there must be something you can do with the answer. So if the surge isn't working what would the next step be? While the bush administration continues to make bad moves all I see anyone doing is pointing out that they were bad moves.

10/15/2007 3:08:50 PM

let get dem evil turrists

10/15/2007 3:12:02 PM

kinda makes you wonder why all this discussion about atrocities committed by turkey more than 100 years ago doesn't it.....and why all of a sudden they decide to send forces into iraq....and how this will hurt our supply chain for the troops

I mean all of this seems to be happening rather quickly, and when we have good news out about how the war is going...

anyone care to explain?

10/15/2007 3:37:35 PM

Yea, its working. So sorry.

http://www.michaeltotten.com/

http://michaelyon-online.com/

10/15/2007 3:50:11 PM

It seems weird to me how fascinated you are with that guy and his website? Do you know someone that knows someone? I imagine you don't even read everything he writes (any?) because you never comment about any of it. Anyone can copy and paste and make it look like they read something, what's the fucking point of posting it in every thread if you aren't going to add to it?

10/15/2007 6:18:13 PM

^^^ No less than Bill Maher explains it all in this edifying video clip:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kth7T198VWI

(Please embed.)

10/16/2007 12:58:50 AM

buy a premium account and embed your own damn videos


actually, that was pretty funny.

and yeah, i dont get it either.

the House is condemning the Ottoman Empire for some genocide 90 years ago, and the Senate is signing important letters to Mark Mays (Clearwire CEO) about chastising Rush Limbaugh.

jesus fucking christ.

it's an embarrassing week to be a Democrat








[Edited on October 16, 2007 at 1:43 AM. Reason : ]

10/16/2007 1:39:30 AM

^ It's true. The Democrats are doing style over substance now--with the Armenian thing anyway--because they can't seem to get substantive parts of their agenda passed. Even Bill Maher recognizes this and he's hardly a member of the "vast right-wing conspiracy."

I don't even mean this as a partisan attack--I swear. But the whole Armenian thing--now?--is just bizarre.



[Edited on October 16, 2007 at 2:05 AM. Reason : .]

10/16/2007 1:44:23 AM

Even Bill Maher joe_schmoe recognizes this and he's hardly a member of the "vast right-wing conspiracy.





[Edited on October 16, 2007 at 2:10 AM. Reason : ]

10/16/2007 1:47:21 AM

Quote :

"I imagine you don't even read everything he writes (any?) because you never comment about any of it. Anyone can copy and paste and make it look like they read something, what's the fucking point of posting it in every thread if you aren't going to add to it?"

I have seen what kind of discusion goes on in this forum. Nothing ever gets solved or resolved.

I merely present some on the ground reporting so that some sort of reasonable information can get into this place.

And I read everything he posts on his website. He had a decent showing on CNN the other day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zl6t9G979js

10/16/2007 9:06:44 AM

Here is the more difficult question:

Given that the surge is working by your definition, how do propose that we keep the troop levels high enough to preserve the current level of security? Institute a draft? More/longer tours of duty? Some other proposal?


What is very worrisome is that none of the likely explanations for reductions in violence appear both positive and sustainable:
1) We are succeeding militarily because of our surge strength, which is not sustainable without a draft. No Iraqi institutions are anywhere close to sufficient for assuming responsibility if/when our troops are reduced.
2) The autonomous sheiks and warlords really in charge are holding off on attacks as long as we continue buying them off. When we quit providing arms and/or we leave, they will be better armed for the inevitable civil war.
3) The surge has pushed insurgents to different locations, but the comparative lull is temporary.


Without more happening in the background, my worry is that the surge is simply prolonging the inevitable. Even the current strength has not been enough to build sustainable institutions and rebuild infrastructure. Both proponents and opponents of the surge policy agreed up front that the policy was temporary, and only intended to provide a window for sustainable domestic institutions to form. Without the formation of those institutions, whether the surge is working from a security standpoint becomes more and more irrelevant. Here is the reality that noone wants to acknowledge: whether or not the surge is working, we will have little choice but to abandon it in the coming months.

10/16/2007 11:08:29 AM

Quote :

"whether or not the surge is working, we will have little choice but to abandon it in the coming months."

10/16/2007 12:22:23 PM

Quote :

"Without more happening in the background, my worry is that the surge is simply prolonging the inevitable. Even the current strength has not been enough to build sustainable institutions and rebuild infrastructure. Both proponents and opponents of the surge policy agreed up front that the policy was temporary, and only intended to provide a window for sustainable domestic institutions to form. Without the formation of those institutions, whether the surge is working from a security standpoint becomes more and more irrelevant. Here is the reality that noone wants to acknowledge: whether or not the surge is working, we will have little choice but to abandon it in the coming months. "

Why do you hate the US and our freedom. when things are going bad you complain than when things improve you still complain

10/16/2007 1:01:14 PM

^ actually, markgoal's post was entirely lucid and exactly to the point.

these are the questions that SHOULD have been asked BEFORE we invaded, but the few people with enough expericence and foresight who WERE asking them got summarily dismissed or squelched by Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Perle and pals.

now we're going to pay for it. well... we're going to pay with our money and international credibility. the Iraqis are going to pay for it with their lives and the lives of their children.




now please tell me you're joking with that "why do you hate freedom" bullshit.






[Edited on October 16, 2007 at 1:59 PM. Reason : ]

10/16/2007 1:57:11 PM

I hate to be a negative nancy about good news, but I watched the Yon cnn clip from above, it's a bit strange that they don't know why things are settled down there now, just that they are settled.

Really gives me warm fuzzies about the capability of our forces on the ground (or perhaps the British forces that pulled out of the area if I remember the clip correctly from when I watched it earlier today).

10/16/2007 10:18:32 PM

^

Quote :

"negative nancy"

10/16/2007 11:18:04 PM

^^ IIRC, the south of Iraq (Basra, et. al.) has consistently been the most peaceful and stable. largely due to the population being homogeneously Shi'a. that the area ever became, even if only for a while, lawless and violent, was an indication of how badly we were failing in Iraq in general. that the south is stable again, only means we're back to the zero-line. taken alone, relative peace in the south of Iraq is not an indication of overall success by any stretch.

and to repeat Markgoal (who is himself summarizing the most informed military analysts), the "surge" is only successful in as much as one that increased troop presence in "area X" has led to decreased violence in "area X". --- but the whole point of the surge is the generally-held theory that political and social stability can only come after physical security, and that physical security will only continue once political stability is achieved.

we are providing the the physical security. and yes it is relatively effective, although at a huge cost. but so far, the Iraqis have not made much, if any, progress towards real political and social stability.

and we cant maintain the "surge" indefinitely. thats why its called a "surge" and not a "sustained increase"

10/16/2007 11:31:00 PM

If the "surge" in Iraq continues to be effective, the political process and Iraqi security forces can solidify, which is obviously one of the surge's goals, and we won't need to maintain high levels of forces. I mean, this is already starting to happen, folks.

1,000 U.K. Troops Coming Home From Iraq
British PM Announces Cut On Visit To Baghdad; Iraqis To Take Over Basra By December

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/02/iraq/main3317474.shtml

100,000 U.S. troops could leave soon: Iraq president

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - At least 100,000 U.S. troops could return home from Iraq by the end of 2008, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said in an interview aired on Sunday, although he proposed that several American military bases stay in Iraq."

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3699979

[Edited on October 17, 2007 at 12:13 AM. Reason : .]

10/17/2007 12:12:20 AM

Quote :

"If the "surge" in Iraq continues to be effective, [then] the political process and Iraqi security forces can solidify, which is obviously one of the surge's goals, and we won't need to maintain high levels of forces."

yes. precisely. the IF ... THEN statement being key.

Quote :

"I mean, this is already starting to happen, folks."

Look, I want this to happen as much as anyone, but you just made a HUGE leap there.

British troops pulling out because their beleaguered PM is trying to hold his political party's fragile majority in power, is hardly evidence of Iraqi competence. If you recall, it wasn't very long ago that Tony Blair's political career went down in flames over this very issue.

Neither is Talabani's incredible assertion that two-thirds of the US forces can leave in a year. I'm sorry, but the Iraqi President has some credibility issues. He's barely clinging on to his job as it is.





[Edited on October 17, 2007 at 1:41 AM. Reason : ]

10/17/2007 1:35:46 AM

^
1. You ignored the second and most important part of the first headline: "Iraqis To Take Over Basra By December".

2. The "100,000" number concerning a reduction in US forces may be high, but President Bush has already committed to ~25,000--and possibly more--in 2008.

Bush Tells Nation He Will Begin to Roll Back 'Surge'
Gen. Petraeus Says U.S. Is Projecting 'Sustainable Security' in Iraq by 2009

Quote :

"Bush said progress on the ground means he can pull out by next summer the additional combat forces he sent in January -- roughly 21,700 troops -- and he opened the door to further troop reductions if conditions improve. Although the president offered no forecast for how long it will take, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told Washington Post reporters and editors yesterday that current U.S. projections anticipate Iraq reaching nationwide 'sustainable security' by June 2009."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/13/AR2007091301746.html

10/17/2007 1:47:44 AM

^ i didnt ignore it. its just not the cause for celebration that you seem to think it is.

of course the Iraqis are going to take over security when the Brits leave Basra -- who do you think is going to take over? if the few functional Iraqi security units available cant handle Basra, for chrissakes, then we might as well throw in the towel right now. I mean, it's only about the safest place in Iraq. All we're doing is handing the southern province to them, and saying, "please, please, don't fuck this up."


(*takes breath*)


yeah, okay. its a good first step. here's to hoping they dont fuck up.

10/17/2007 2:03:41 AM

^ A celebration would certainly be premature on my part or anyone else's--and I did nothing of the sort. I simply choose to focus on the positive news coming out of Iraq and there's nothing wrong with doing that. You should try it sometime.

10/17/2007 2:10:30 AM

nah. i like it better this way:

you be polly-anna, and i'll be negative nancy.







[Edited on October 17, 2007 at 2:26 AM. Reason : [no homo]

10/17/2007 2:23:55 AM

Quote :

" 1. You ignored the second and most important part of the first headline: "Iraqis To Take Over Basra By December"."

You ignored my comment earlier that THEY DON'T KNOW WHY THE AREA IS PEACEFUL.

Is the Iraqi army controlling? Is the militia being peaceful? For now? They don't know. That's security right there!

10/17/2007 6:53:13 AM

Quote :

"now please tell me you're joking with that "why do you hate freedom" bullshit."

yeah i thought my sarcasm was apparent.

Guys maybe if he click our heels twice, close our eyes really tight, and say a quick prayer. Iraq will transform into a magical paradise of freedom and democracy. Everyone will hold hands and share everything in a perfect utopian society, also producing enough oil to export to help Bush and Co. their extra dividends bonus from all their corporate interest in the energy sector

10/17/2007 9:47:59 AM

^ I find your Wizard of Oz reference disconcerting, Dorothy.

10/17/2007 11:24:54 AM

^ I think you should stick to searching for your long lost brain, Scarecrow

10/17/2007 12:37:17 PM

Quote :

"i thought my sarcasm was apparent."

nothing about you is apparent. you say something clever and/or insightful in one thread, then something completely retarded in another... hell, sometimes in the same thread.

besides, you followed the obvious catchphrase with an actual argument almost verbatim used by Bush Admin apologists like Twista.




[Edited on October 17, 2007 at 2:59 PM. Reason : ]

10/17/2007 2:55:51 PM

I think HUR has been particularly levelheaded in here, are you sure you haven't confused him with someone else? It was glaringly oblivious he was being sarcastic.

10/17/2007 2:57:22 PM

for this thread perhaps ... i kind of blurred over pages 4-10.

in any event, you need to watch out, HUR will fuck you up when you're not looking.





[Edited on October 17, 2007 at 3:02 PM. Reason : ]

10/17/2007 3:00:38 PM

^x4


"If I only had a brain. . . ."

My gift to you during this harvest season.

10/18/2007 12:15:19 AM