I think we all know that Al Qaeda is probably regrouped to some form or fassion because of the agreement between the government of Pakistan and the tribal villages on the Afgan border. Those guys are just able to run free. What I find interesting is to see what Pakistan does now that the "Red Mosque" situation is finished. That should have been a slap in the face to Musharraf that doing those kind of deals with barbarians is only going to hurt him. Why won't Pakistan just let us bomb the shit out of those areas? Why won't they go in?

Anyways, I think we need to give the surge its time to work. You can't put another 20k soilders in the middle of a civil war and expect things to get better in 20 days. It's not going to happen in that period of time. I'm sure that if we give it the original intended amount of time, another two-three months, and no progress is made, then we will start to draw down troops. Anything sooner is premature.

7/13/2007 9:21:02 AM

#1, it's been well over 20 days
#2, I think the surge total was 30k?
#3, Unless congress forces his hand, Bush has shown no desire or interest in drawing down the troops until the as yet undefined success is achieved


On NPR, they mentioned the report and said there were 8 benchmarks being met in some way, 8 that weren't, and 2 that were a mixed bag.

This sounds like a much more favorable result than Pelosi's blog, assuming that you can give equal weight to the positive benchmarks and negative. It seems like if TreeTwista were a legitimate contributor to this section, and not a worthless troll, he would do us the favor to do this research, rather than just being an annoyance and attacking the source.

7/13/2007 9:44:30 AM

well are you suggesting that we stop the surge and just bring back the troops right now? what are you suggesting? Anything, or are you just hating

7/13/2007 9:47:37 AM

It's been discussed in other threads. This is a thread to discuss if the surge is working. You have basically said it needs more time, even though a report exist discussing progress towards benchmarks. Seems a little strange, don't you think?

7/13/2007 9:54:48 AM

Pelosi's blog, a NYT editorial, and NPR....and you claim you're not liberal Bwahahaha

7/13/2007 10:50:13 AM

I'm typically fiscally conservative, socially left leaning, but I don't want big government thinking they can run people's lives. At this point, Ron Paul has my vote. Guess that makes me a communist. Shurg

7/13/2007 11:20:21 AM

pushing on a balloon...

7/13/2007 11:48:53 AM

The stories coming out of Baghdad on a local level have been quite moving, I'll grant you. Our soldiers have been hard at work over there for 4 years. I have a friend in Afghanistan putting his civil engineering and architectural degrees to use. And yes, on a local level, my friend and our troops in general are having a significant impact. That of course isn't the problem.

The problem is the lack of leadership, political foresight, and diplomacy on a national and international level. The Bush Administration has not gotten the Iraqis to stand on their own. They orchestrated the destruction of the former regime, and in turn they are responsible for putting it back together.

From the latest report, they've done an atrocious job doing it.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/12/news/14web-prexy.php

4 years later the Iraqis can't run their own national security. 4 years later and the government exists in name only. 4 years later we still have Shia, Kurds, and Sunnis killing each other, that is when they're not killing us. 4 years later... Al Qaida is evidently back on the rise.

Yes, I understand why we need to stay. We need to stay to help nurse the fragile Iraqi government to health. We have to protect the Iraqi citizens so they can resume some semblance of normality in their lives. We have to stay because, damnit, we are responsible for fixing what has been broken. This is all well and good, but....

Someone please tell me what we're DOING to make some actual PROGRESS. 4 years isn't long enough to at least have a semi-functional government? 4 years isn't long enough to have an Iraqi led security force to monitor Baghdad? 4 years... and Al Qaida isn't any weaker... it's STRONGER.

All this, and we've degraded ourselves in the international community. We've seen our British allies fall by the wayside. The US is now more vulnerable to attack than ever before. Why? Because we've sat in a foreign nation for 4 years, and the some people just seem to take offense to this.


I support the US troops. I believe they are doing an exceptional, downright admirable job. But those efforts are for nothing unless the Administration, the one that ordered them there, pulls the strings to get progress going at the national/international levels. Without it, the troops are nothing more than sitting ducks for ongoing terrorism. I support our troops... enough so that if they're hard work is being abused... I will demand that they be brought home.


Mr. President, you are NOT waiting on the troops to finish the job. They are waiting YOU. Put them in a position to win, or get them the fuck out.

[Edited on July 13, 2007 at 1:03 PM. Reason : efad]

7/13/2007 12:59:10 PM

^ that is actually one of the better responses I've read.

7/13/2007 2:05:53 PM

^^ wow, gg dude!

7/13/2007 2:50:44 PM

people are impatient

7/13/2007 2:53:57 PM

^ ya i no rite? most occupation armies throughout history have had to stay 20-30 years.

might as well crack open another beer, we aint goin nowhere.

7/13/2007 3:24:04 PM

cheers

7/13/2007 3:56:56 PM

Quote :

"might as well crack open another beer, we aint goin nowhere."

If you did it in Iraq you'd be in violation of General Order #1 which prohibits alcohol and prawn among other things.

7/13/2007 4:00:25 PM

I dunno why people are so eager to see forward progress in Iraq. I mean clearly, you have to back slide for four years, return al qaeda to the same strength it was in circa Sept 11, 2001, have more terrorist today than then, and have a less safe United States because of this, before you should start to see any forward progress.

Seems reasonable to me, dunno why all the fuss.

7/13/2007 4:54:31 PM

^

7/13/2007 4:56:16 PM

i get scared too when i read pelosi's blog and the NYT and listen to NPR

7/13/2007 5:49:01 PM

i aint skeered.

i say we stay the course.

and give it time to work.

don't question our leaders.

now shut up and eat it.

and watch American Idol tonight at 8.

7/13/2007 5:59:32 PM

so you were being sarcastic earlier when you mentioned the 20-30 year time frame

7/13/2007 6:14:03 PM

sometimes i think you're pretty clever.

other times, not so much.

7/13/2007 6:52:33 PM

If reading the speaker's of the house blog scares you, then you have serious psychological problems.

[Edited on July 14, 2007 at 11:11 AM. Reason : eh]

7/14/2007 10:43:00 AM

I thought we wouldn't have a good idea if the surge worked or not until like late August or September. What's with all the early doom and gloom ?

Oh, I forgot it's time again for congress to fund the troops while simultaneously convincing the far left
that they are doing something about the war. Yeah, woo hoo, more political grandstanding at the expense of the troops.

7/15/2007 1:50:46 AM

Quote :

" Iraqi prime minister says U.S. troops can go 'anytime they want'"

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/14/iraq.military.ap/index.html


Sooooooo, bail?

7/15/2007 3:24:30 PM

Quote :

"Oh, I forgot it's time again for congress to fund the troops while simultaneously convincing the far left that they are doing something about the war."

We're well beyond only the far left being opposed to the war. You know, just FYI.

7/15/2007 4:34:16 PM

http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20070717_release.pdf


A resounding no if you ask me. Oh god, someone please attack this report for having some bias, rather than discussing the report. I know one of you will.

Quote :

"We assess the group has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability, including: a safehaven in the Pakistan Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), operational lieutenants, and its top leadership. Although we have discovered only a handful of individuals in the United States with ties to al-Qa’ida senior leadership since 9/11, we judge that al-Qa’ida will intensify its efforts to put operatives here."

So, we were on the offensive in Pakistan, put a severe dent in their operations, then pulled back to invade Iraq, letting them regain their foothold. Lovely. Additionally, there weren't many al-Qa’ida operatives here, but now we have made them more eager to get here. Fight them there so we don't fight them here

Quote :

"Of note, we assess that al-Qa’ida will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qa’ida in Iraq (AQI), its most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the Homeland. In addition, we assess that its association with AQI helps al-Qa’ida to energize the broader Sunni extremist community, raise resources, and to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks."

Now thats fucking cake right there you have to admit. Our war created a complete new terrorist group that didn't exist before and they want to attack us in our homeland.

Quote :

"The ability to detect broader and more diverse terrorist plotting in this environment will challenge current US defensive efforts and the tools we use to detect and disrupt plots. It will also require greater understanding of how suspect activities at the local level relate to strategic threat information and how best to identify indicators of terrorist activity in the midst of legitimate interactions."

As long as we check everyone's shoes and take their water bottles, what is there to worry about?

7/18/2007 9:28:50 AM

BlindSheehan

7/18/2007 10:19:11 AM

I wonder where we'd be now had we concentrated our efforts in only afghanistan. Around the beginning of the Iraq invasion Afg. seemed to be on the right track, nobody disputed the fact that we should be there, and from what I could tell, the civilians welcomed us for the most part. Now, b/c of Iraq, afg. is backsliding, it is becoming increasingly hard to keep order, and the taliban is experiencing a resurgence......

Did Iraq and the multi fronted war cost us a favorable outcome in afg. too? The start of the multi fronted war is usually the beginning of the end for the aggressor, especially on foreign soil.

7/18/2007 10:21:51 AM

^ Of course it did. Short of dumping MANY more troops into booth regions, we aren't getting anywhere fast with this "war on terror".

With that report in hand, I don't see how the Dems can still be such wimps about this thing. Defund the war. Fucking do something.

7/18/2007 10:37:24 AM

Quote :

"I don't see how the Dems can still be such wimps"

why not? how many years and years and years of them being wimps is it going to take for you to finally see how they are such wimps

ps: republicans are also dumbasses but aren't as big a "wimps"

7/18/2007 10:40:52 AM

Quote :

"republicans are also dumbasses but aren't as big a "wimps""

It's easy to not be a "wimp" when you never actually feel the ramifications of something on a personal level.....the officials in this administration will never see any consequences of this failed campaign, while most civilians feel them every day, and will continue to do so for probably the rest of their lives.

7/18/2007 11:13:45 AM

Quote :

"most civilians feel them every day, and will continue to do so for probably the rest of their lives"

what consequences do you feel every day?

7/18/2007 11:26:54 AM

defenselink.mil had an article talking about how militarily the surge has made pretty good progress. things could get interesting

7/18/2007 12:31:29 PM

Link plz?

In the process of trying to find it, I stumbled on this

http://www.defenselink.mil/home/dodupdate/iraq-update/Handovers/index.html

Quote :

"In June 2004, no Iraqi Army units were in the lead, capable of coordinating, planning, and executing security operations independent of Coalition forces in their own areas of responsibility."

Quote :

"On June 1, 2007, responsibility for maintaining the security of Erbil, Dahuk and Sulaymaniyah Provinces in northern Iraq was officially transferred to the Kurdistan Regional Government. It is the seventh of eighteen Iraqi provinces where security control is now principally in the hands of Iraqis, with Coalition forces standing ready to provide assistance if needed. "

Seems like good news, until you realize it has taken 3 years to secure the least volatile areas of the country.

7/18/2007 12:50:45 PM

Quote :

"^ Of course it did. Short of dumping MANY more troops into booth regions, we aren't getting anywhere fast with this "war on terror". With that report in hand, I don't see how the Dems can still be such wimps about this thing. Defund the war. Fucking do something."

The Dems can't do anything without the moderate Republicans. Nothing will get through the Senate until the Dick Lugars and John Warners of the world decide to put their money where their mouth is. As it is, many GOP moderates are eager to criticize the war but unwilling to do anything about it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/17/AR2007071701487.html?hpid%3Dopinionsbox1&sub=AR

Quote :

"A few Republicans have come to terms with that. When the Senate votes, probably today, on ending the Republican filibuster against the Levin-Reed legislation, three Republicans -- Chuck Hagel, Gordon Smith and Olympia Snowe-- have pledged to side with those who would compel the administration to begin withdrawals. But for all the sound and fury coming from the senior Republicans ostensibly in revolt, none of them is poised to join the three. None is willing to challenge the White House on the conduct of the war in the only way that counts -- by mandating a shift in policy. Instead, these senior Republicans speak loudly and carry no stick -- indeed, they speak loudly precisely because they are so stickless. In a July 9 speech on the Senate floor, Warner warned that this is "a time in our history unlike any I have ever witnessed." He spoke of telling administration leaders about the need to change course and added, "I was asked by the press whether I thought they'd brush it off and I resoundingly replied, 'No.' " "

7/18/2007 1:03:40 PM

Quote :

"while most civilians feel them every day"

I almost choked on my lunch when I read this. Other than military families and contractors, how exactly is John Q Public feeling the ramifications of this war?

7/18/2007 1:07:07 PM

Annoyances in airports. The constant reminder of the threat of a catastrophic attack by those in this administration. At some point, this war has to be paid for somehow. Etc.

7/18/2007 1:11:48 PM

i'm pretty sure the "annoyances" in airports were in response to 9/11 since OBVIOUSLY airport security was not good enough

I mean I know you've got to convince yourself that you're really being unfairly inconvenienced and troubled and that this war personally fucks you over, but the fact is your life isn't really any more different in 2007 than it would be if we hadn't been at war the last 4 years...I mean the news you watch on TV and read about online is clearly different but thats about it

7/18/2007 1:21:49 PM

For once I agree with TreeTwista10. Most "inconveniences" that people experience on a daily basis are 9/11 related and the rising price of gas has as much to do with increased worldwide consumption as it does with the war in Iraq. Other than being bombarded by news reports most people in the US are clueless about what happens over there. I had a fairly intelligent woman the other day ask why we went into Afghanistan.

[Edited on July 18, 2007 at 1:31 PM. Reason : .]

7/18/2007 1:30:57 PM

Quote :

"Most "inconveniences" that people experience on a daily basis are 9/11 related and the rising price of gas has as much to do with increased worldwide consumption as it does with the war in Iraq."

I don't lump gas prices into the inconvenience list.

The shoes and water are well after 9/11 and are all part of this "culture of terrorism" fear mongering assault this administration has engaged in, the same fear mongering to enable them to wage war on Iraq.

I'll concede that though p implies q, even though we have q it doesn't necessarily mean p, that is, the Iraq war itself didn't cause these inconveniences, but the war drum beating to get us into war are most certainly tightly linked.

7/18/2007 1:48:22 PM

Quote :

"The shoes and water are well after 9/11 and are all part of this "culture of terrorism" fear mongering assault this administration has engaged in, the same fear mongering to enable them to wage war on Iraq."

I don't necessarialy disagree with that. We've come a long way from "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself", but I still contend that with Iraq, or without Iraq, the effect on the average American has been minimal.

I mean, seriously, you can't take water on an airplane? Fuck, war is hell.

[Edited on July 18, 2007 at 1:53 PM. Reason : .]

7/18/2007 1:52:45 PM

how dare you make me take my shoes off when i occasionally travel by airplane...i'd rather have the plane blown up than give up my freedom to wear shoes through an airport

7/18/2007 1:58:38 PM

^^ Nice strawman.

I am with you that the inconveniences are slight, however they are there. You also didn't address who pays for this war?

^
Yea, shoes, and water, and ipod chargers,

http://www.makezine.com/blog/archive/2007/07/tsa_and_electronics.html?CMP=OTC-0D6B48984890

and babies that talk to much,

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=local&id=5472927

and rocks stars

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Entertainment/2007/07/09/metallica_singer_detained_at_airport/2469/

and on and on and on

[Edited on July 18, 2007 at 2:33 PM. Reason : y]

7/18/2007 2:04:46 PM

^ Strawman? How?

I mean, James Hetfield being detained in a British airport isn't really a compelling argument for why the average American has sacrificed for this war.

Keep in mind I'm not arguing that the war was right, far from it I have disagreed with it from the start, I despise the Patriot Act, and I feel like the administration has bungled the war from, ohh around May 03 onward.

However, being in the Army I have little sympathy for the average American's inconveniences compared to what my friends have been through. "Ohmigaw, it cost me $2.89 a gallon to drive to the mall this weekend, this is so horrible." Please.

[Edited on July 18, 2007 at 2:48 PM. Reason : .]

7/18/2007 2:47:33 PM

James Hetfield isn't an American? British airport policy, driven because of our war in Iraq and the newly created "culture of fear from terrorism" isn't compelling? And replace "James Hetfield" with "anyone with a long beard" and it becomes completely compelling. Shall I go find articles where Arab Americans are being treated in the same manner in American airports?

The discussion of "war is hell" as some sort of whammy for everyone not fighting the war but is inconvenienced by it is the glaring strawman.

Just because you, as a US soldier, probably in uniform half the time with your own little line, isn't accosted in an airport, doesn't mean a shit ton of other people aren't.


For a third time now - who pays for this war and how?

7/18/2007 2:53:09 PM

James Hetfield was detained as a matter of British policy, as was Yusef Islam (aka Cat Stevens). Umm, I mean I can check with my lawyers, but last time I saw, congress doesn't have the authority to create British legislation. Something about 1776 and a declaration of something or another. Let me get back to you on that.

War is hell. Sarcasm to make a point, ever heard of it? My intent was that, compared historically to other wars in US history, the impact of this particular war on day-to-day life is minimal at best. You can get as angry as you want in your own little world of blind hate, but you'd be wrong. Its cool though, do what works for you buddy.

Quote :

"Just because you, as a US soldier, probably in uniform half the time with your own little line, isn't accosted in an airport, doesn't mean a shit ton of other people aren't."

Um, the only time I've worn a uniform on an airplane has been either a) military aircraft or b) a government chartered flight. As a matter of fact, I go out of my way to not appear military in any way, shape, or form on an aircraft. If it was hijacked, it would only single me out as a target. I go through the same lines as you, I deal with the same stuff you do. Ignorance is a bitch, isn't it man?

Again, I disagree with most tenants of the Patriot Act, and I agree that flying is more of a hassle than it used to be, but taking off my shoes in order to travel on a flight I chose to book isn't exactly an infringement on my constitutional right.

That is the point I'm making, not that the war is right. You don't think I know who pays for the war? How about the three friends I've got who died in Iraq? How about the fact that the military's divorce rate is at record highs? How about the ~27,000 service members wounded in combat? Yes the war is a collisal waste of money and the political good will we had after September 11th, but don't lecture me about the cost of the war in Iraq with pithy anecdotes from disgruntled passengers.

7/18/2007 3:03:58 PM

Quote :

"Ignorance is a bitch, isn't it man?"

Oh, now you are getting rattled. I said "probably", that doesn't make me ignorant at all. I stand in lines in airports, I see the soldiers that get a free pass, and thats totally fine with me. I also see the poor schmucks with the beards that get pulled out of the lines.

Bottom line is, the average American citizen is worse off because of this war in ways we may explicitly feel daily (airport nuisances, etc) and for ways we may not feel explicitly (higher taxes, friends deaths, real increased risk of a terrorist attack, etc).

Quote :

"Yes the war is a collisal waste of money and the political good will we had after September 11th, but don't lecture me about the cost of the war in Iraq with pithy anecdotes from disgruntled passengers."

You can keep trying to use the "war is hell, standing in line is not" point all you want to, it doesn't make this comment any less valid

Quote :

"the officials in this administration will never see any consequences of this failed campaign, while most civilians feel them every day, and will continue to do so for probably the rest of their lives."

[Edited on July 18, 2007 at 3:21 PM. Reason : t]

7/18/2007 3:20:47 PM

Quote :

"Other than military families and contractors, how exactly is John Q Public feeling the ramifications of this war?"

Quote :

"Imperial ventures,” as Scheer described the war, usually serve powerful, corporate interests, like Halliburton, rather than most people, who have seen gas prices soar and federal budgets for domestic programs like health care, research and education decrease. Civil liberties also have been compromised, he said, from torturing Iraqis to warrantless wiretapping of US citizens. Among other highlights of the teach-in: • About 1,700 US soldiers have suffered severe traumatic brain injuries in combat so far, which is likely to cost the United States $20 billion over the next 20 years, according to William Schecter, MD, chief of surgery at San Francisco General Hospital. • Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has lasting effects on soldiers and their spouses and children, transcending a generation and lasting 30 years or more, according to Charles Marmar, MD, chief of mental health services at San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC), who recounted lessons learned from Vietnam. Unlike in Vietnam, where women served as nurses rather than combatants, 13 percent of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are women, many in combat situations."

http://pub.ucsf.edu/today/cache/news/200705161.html

article is about the war's effects on american and iraqi citizens.

not to mention the fact that while I don't have any immediate family in Iraq, I have several good friends who have either served, or are currently serving there, and it's not the best feeling knowing they stand a real chance of dying or getting mentally or physically injured......we don't live in bubbles, an event of this magnitude has far reaching effects on most everyone, save of course the masterminds of the war, who are probably getting even richer off of it.

[Edited on July 18, 2007 at 3:29 PM. Reason : .]

7/18/2007 3:27:19 PM

Quote :

"British airport policy, driven because of our war in Iraq 9/11"

you keep making the same mistake...but I guess you'd rather blame our president or the Iraq war than blame the actual terrorists who flew planes into our buildings when you get slightly inconvenienced at an airport

I guess when the airport lost my luggage in Indianapolis in 1999 I should've blamed Clinton and the war in Bosnia

7/18/2007 4:09:54 PM

I can't help it that you let yourself be terrorized.

7/18/2007 4:14:53 PM

the undenyable fact is we are less safe than we were immediately after 9/11 despite all the precautions, because of our govenment's actions abroad.

imagine what we could have gotten done had we invested the some 600 billion, spent on Iraq so far, domestically.

7/18/2007 4:42:48 PM