I'm confused. Is the "surge" working? In what sense is it supposed to work?

[Smith_3]

Just trying to understand what all that talk is about that the surge has worked. What are the criteria with which this is measured?

[Hydra]

1. The "surge" "working" is supposedly measured by decreased troop deaths

or our puppet gov't there handing over the oil.

0-2 From my perpective, but I also know it wasn't planned to "work." It was a combination of buying time, a PR strategy, putting more troops on the field to create more sectarian violence, etc. to justify our continued presence there.

[Smith_3]

3. Its weird though...

...from what I understood, we went in with about 160.000 tropps. approximately five years later we had about 25.000 that were dead or wounded. so let's assume that we had about 15.000 inoperative soldiers. a "surge" of 20.000 then is hardly more than a "replacement" of the ones that were lost.

Doesn't sound like there was much of a change in anything to me.

[Hydra]

5. The surge was far bigger

20,000 + support troops. The estimate was around 46,000. The major point at the time was the fact that the country was calling for a drawdown. Instead, Bush pushed for and got 46,000 more troops and that damn 15 month tour extension.

Notice how drawdown is always in the future now? It's always next year, but only if conditions permit. In that regard, The RW Bastards won.

[Genanderson]

14. Not exactly

What you're saying would be true if the military never replaced casaulties. But it replaces its losses, thereby keeping the total number of troops that it wants in Iraq relatively static. So a 20,000 or 46,000 or whatever the real surge number is is indeed that much more they've increased by.

[truedelphi]

21. The realproblem being, not what are the numbers of bodies

That are involved in the surge, but the sad fact remains that if Bush had just listened to some of the sharper military advisors back in SPring 2003 and had 315,000 soldiers there right after the Shock and Awe Campaign, Iraq wouldn't have gone the way of sectarian violence and the resulting civil war.

But maybe that was the plan all along

[Genanderson]

13. Seems to me

both parties are using the fluctuating numbers of deaths per week/month/year to promote their own arguments, whether for or against the war. The fact that each party's emphasis on the importance of the number of deaths in reflecting the success or failure of our military demonstrates the absurdity of the argument in the first place. The success of war is based on tactical victories, not casaulties, or we would have lost many a costly war before now. And as far as tactical victories go, from what i've read, it does seem as if our military is gaining ground through the taking and holding of regions. Politically, the progress is not so clear.

[Hydra]

18. Since we aren't allowed to simply colonize Iraq

I suspect the real goalpost is having our puppet gov't pass the oil law. The Neocons picked a bad set of puppets though- they refuse to do what we order them to...I suspect they're holding out for more of a bribe, myself, otherwise they'd all be in body bags right now.

[theoldman]

2. Like Bill Clinton said "It all depends on the meaning of is"

The surge was an afterthought by Bush when things did not get any better in Iraq. I think the idea was to give the Iraqi government more time to get their act together. This has not happened so we are stuck until the Iraqis shape up. This may take 10 to 20 years. Is everybody happy?

[sandnsea]

16. Bill also said the surge is working

He said it on Charlie Rose. I can't believe he's been allowed to get away with that. It just goes to show how much politics is dictating the Dem Party Iraq strategy, particularly Clinton politics.

[Fire Walk With Me]

4. It worked just great. BushCo just got another 70 billion dollars for the invasion.

Can't leave our troops in the lurch, and if there are more, they'll need more money.

By "they", I mean Halliburton getting $100.00 for doing each bag of laundry, etc.

[Snarkoleptic]

7. And charging the military $3/gallon for gas when the market bears 15 cents/gallon in Iraq.

[EVDebs]

6. The Permanent Bases and 10 year timeframe remain a media vacuum

Document reveals Nixon plan to seize Arab oil fields
'70s embargo sparked 'last resort' measure, says British memo
by Lizette Alvarez, New York Times
Friday, January 2, 2004

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/01/02/MNG8G427D61.DTL

"The British warned in their assessment that any occupation of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi might have to last as long as 10 years. The use of force would also anger and alienate Arab countries and irritate the Soviet Union, although a military confrontation with the country would be unlikely, the document stipulated."

The recent Democratic debates emphasized a ten year occupation,

Top Democratic candidates won't vow full Iraq pullout by 2013
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/27/dems.debate.ap/

"The leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013."

So, the ten year timeline appears to still be intact.

The 'permanent bases' that got the Quakers in trouble with the NSA,

http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm

directly contradicts Bush's rhetoric,

'As Iraqis Stand Up, We Will Stand Down,' Bush Tells Nation
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=16277

The Surge is meant to be a propaganda method in order to keep troops mired in Iraq long enough to keep oil companies' profits high enough to last through the Peak Oil transition period. It was also a convenient method of putting pressure on the Iranians and also tempt them to strike those forces, thus giving another pretext for a new war.

[Fire Walk With Me]

12. "putting pressure on the Iranians and also tempt them to strike those forces"

Thankfully the Iranians have been canny enough to ignore the baiting. They must remember the Contra affair very well, and seen what has happened to Iraq when their friends, the American government, stepped in to be of assistance.

[RiverStone]

8. How could a surge work when the very premise of the action...

Is based on an illegal war/invasion in the first place?!

No - the surge is not working! The whole damn war is not working and it never was.

[Genanderson]

11. ummm

are you saying that the insurgents are invincible because our reason for coming into the area is bunk? I didn't realize the effectiveness/outcome of military engagements were based on the morality of the combatants.

[RiverStone]

15. No, I'm saying it's a stupid question

The real question is when are we going to exit a country that we illegally invaded in the first place?

No one is invincible, but how do you measure success? The entire action was based on lies and faulty intelligence.

How do you measure the effectiveness when many high ranking soldiers have already said the continuation of our presence in the country is a mistake --- period?

[EVDebs]

29. Besides, the 'war' is over...it's now an occupation

See post #6 link showing this was a DoD war plan begun in 1973 to seize Saudi oil fields, now 'tweaked' to take Iraqi oil fields. The ten year timeline is still in effect too.

[baldguy]

9. It was intended to give the Iraqi "govt" breathing space to get their act together.

Since that objective has failed, the Bush Regime has searched for other "successes" to hang on it.

[Olney Blue]

10. Bush got more war funding- it worked.

[gratuitous]

17. Anything you want it to do

It's a floor wax AND a dessert topping!

Troop deaths are down? The surge is working!

Troop deaths are up? The surge is working!

Gas prices have gone up? The surge is working!

Gas prices have gone down? The surge is working!

Order has been restored to some areas? The surge is working!

Chaos has devoured some areas? The surge is working!

We have more troops than ever in the area? The surge is working!

We've drawn down 5,000 troops? The surge is working!

Name your own criterion, because it proves the surge is working, no matter which way it's going. It's easy and fun. The surge is working because George W. Bush says it's working, and the media have never known this administration to lie or be deceitful or misleading, so it must be true.

[humbled_opinion]

24. LOL but Harry Reid recently said the surge worked too...

Look the surge worked.... It brought the levels of violence down. If the Iraqis get their act together its all positive... We hope for the best.... Why do you think it is so hard for the Democratic congress to get anything accomplished.... If they do something like force a withdraw or remove funds and the trends in Iraq reverse the Democrats will bear the brunt of the spin machine and everything will be their fault.

[gratuitous]

27. Oh, I forgot

Because the surge is working, we need to maintain our military presence. And if it hadn't worked, we need to maintain our military presence. And the levels of violence are down, so we need to maintain our military presence. Next year, when the violence ratchets back up, we need to maintain our military presence.

So, for maintaining the status quo and contribute to endless war, the surge worked, is working, will always work. And when the surge doesn't work anymore, we'll need to keep fighting. Because there's a one in a kazillion chance that, all evidence to the contrary, it might just work again, whatever that means. And of course, it continues to work, because it provides a pretext for continuing and everlasting war in Iraq. Which is all it's supposed to do, provide a colorable argument to keep things going.

But if you're looking for a resolution to hostilities, if you're looking for a stable Iraq, if you're looking for peace, then no, the surge isn't working and cannot possibly work. But nobody will ask this administration if the surge is doing any of these things, by common agreement. So the administration keeps saying the surge is working, but nobody knows or asks what that means. Because that would give away the game.

[Rex]

19. It did work! It distracted us from pulling out the troops long ago.

And made more bodies available to be riddled with bullets. It worked and I bet Dickless and Bushless are counting on it to work into 2009. And on.

[Poiuyt]

20. If violence is down, is it because of the increased level of

troops (the surge), is it because we have been making deals with and paying off our enemies (as happened with the Sunni insurgents in Anbar province), or is it because Muqtada al-Sadr has suspended the activities of his of Mehdi Army?

If it's because of the troop surge, what will happen as we pull back (as we do not have the troops to sustain that level)?

If it's because of deals to our enemies, will we need to keep paying them?

If it's because of a-Sadr's truce, what will happen if he calls it off?

[Disturbed]

22. The Busholini gamble has paid off so far.

Iraq is no longer a top concern. Will the tamping down last for another six months?
It seems that the various factions are on hold. As long as US Casualties are low, the US Corp. Media
will keep the reporting at a low. Out of sight. Out of Mind.


The Repug & Dem Leaders want to maintain the US Occupation.
They want to keep the Fiasco going to finalize that Oil Deal.. The Repugs & Dems are afraid that they will be blamed if they force the end of the US Occupation and Iraq goes down the tubes & Iran gains major control in the ME. That wouldn't be good for the '08 Election.

[ThePowerofWill]

23. The surge seems to have won the spin war for sure.

However on the ground it was not more troops that was the success, but making deals with various tribal leaders. Also many areas were ethically cleansed, and the violence just subsided on it's own. The actual surge had little to do with any of it.

[pleah]

25. What happened with all the troops that were supposed to come home

for Christmas? I guess since everyone was so distracted, they got away with not bringing them home.

[Echo In Light]

26. TV says so. People believe it. Simple equation.

[LynnTheDem]

28. It's the "last throes"!

Again.