• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Patraeus: Surge a Failure?

Tsukasa Buddha

Other (please write in)
Tsukasa Buddha
Joined
Sep 10, 2006
Messages
15,302
BAGHDAD, March 13 -- Iraqi leaders have failed to take advantage of a reduction in violence to make adequate progress toward resolving their political differences, Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said Thursday.

Petraeus, who is preparing to testify to Congress next month on the Iraq war, said in an interview that "no one" in the U.S. and Iraqi governments "feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation," or in the provision of basic public services.

...

While violence has declined dramatically since late 2006, when thousands of Iraqis were being killed each month, U.S. military data show that attacks on U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians have leveled off or risen slightly in the early part of 2008. "I don't see an enormous uptick projected right now," Petraeus said, speaking in his windowless office in the U.S. Embassy, which is housed in Saddam Hussein's former Republican Palace. "What you have seen is some sensational attacks, there's no question about that."
Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/13/AR2008031303793_2.html

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the point of the surge to get the violence levels down to get the government working? I mean, if violence is leveling off, isn't that the best we can do from a military POV?

(And yes, I noticed the typo)
 
Last edited:
Wow, those of us in the reality-based community were pretty sure this was going to fail. Now, the Bush administration's man on the ground confirms what we knew back in June/July of last year... what a shock. I guess this admission means that those of us who knew this crap almost a year ago were just "lucky", even though we've predicted every Bush failure for the last seven effing years...
 
Blue Mountain said:
How were they going to define success? A reduction in the number of Iraqis killed? Or just Americans? (Hopefully both!)

Has that been achieved?
Click to expand...
I think the lie they were going with this month was "political progress"... which was tough, considering the fact that the Iraqi government takes lots of time off, fails to do anything of substance, and in general acts just like that idiot George W. Bush. :mad:
 
Reporters "on the ground" have been saying all along that though things in Baghdad are marginally "better", they are still absolutely awful. The bar was very, very low to begin with, so a slight raise doesn't mean much.
 
Let me first offer the caveat for those of you not familiar with my position on Iraq - I think it was a boondoggle and fiasco that was the most poorly planned execution of U.S. military power ever. That said, I hope the "surge" works and more importantly, I hope that al-Sadr and his forces will maintain the truce that has made it work (such as that word can be applied) since it was initiated.

If we have a military presence in Iraq for years to come, I'd rather it was like I experienced as a dependant in Iran and Germany rather than an endless occupation scenario that we're unfortunately looking at if the boil doesn't, at least, calm down to a simmer.

We needed 300,000 "coalition" troops for the initial invasion and occupation. We needed someone other than Bremmer to be the Viceroy. I'm glad we're having strategic* success finally, but why the hell is it coming 4-5 years after the invasion???

* F-you Condie forever, though I love you, for conflating Gee Dubyah's f-ed up "strategerie" with the actual successes of the "thousands and thousands" of tactical commanders, platoon leaders and NCOs who served magnificently during Operation Iraqi SNAFU that you and your overlords foisted upon us.
 
Thanks for this info. In other threads I have suggested that the Surge was a failure for the same reason and was beaten up by the (what would you call someone who has supported and continues to support this horrible war?)
 
PAC said:
Thanks for this info. In other threads I have suggested that the Surge was a failure for the same reason and was beaten up by the (what would you call someone who has supported and continues to support this horrible war?)
Click to expand...
We should probably call them an ambulance to take them to a mental hospital for their own good?
 
I've been reading news reports and analysis on this Surge since it was first proposed.

The person who has held one of the keys to its success, or stated aims, is not a stakeholder in the success of the US in Iraq.

His name is Al Sadr. His well publicized guidance to his militia to back off on the violence was a significant contribution to some of the violence reduction early on.

At any time he and his faction choose to get froggy, the reduced violence aim of this Surge will go down in flames.

Other factions did not choose to show such restraint, with the predictable result that their activities were somewhat curtailed, at best.

Did the surge achieve its political aim within a year?

No.

Can it in three years?

Maybe, maybe not.

Will the expenditure of men and money to continue that approach be sustained, and can it be sustained?

I don't think so.

Worth a try, but there was no guarantee it would work. As it stands now, a whole lot else has to work for the stated aim, reduction in violence/civil war/destabilizing bomb attacks, for the political process in Iraq to move forward.

Not optimistic about the outcome.

DR
 
The surge is often talked about as if it was some cunning master plan. In actuality it is just more boots on the ground to keep a tin lid on things. In truth the error was going in with too few troops initially and allowing foreign fighters to gain a foothold in Iraq who in turn fester seething rage between Iraqi Sunnis and Shia - not to mention the wide scale looting and lawlessness following the invasion which crippled the country and its infrastructure.

The surge in reality has turned out to not be a quick boost of troops to deal with a specific problem but a long term increase in troop numbers to allow the Coalition to police more effectively while Iraqi troop numbers increase.

Of course, if the Iraqi Government fails to take advantage of the respite then yes it may well be in vain - although that is not the fault of the Coalition forces. It would seem that Iraq is going to cost another pretty penny or two before the show is over. I can't say I see any quick and easy way to extract ourselves either.
 
Last edited:
Never been optimistic about the outcome, wouldn't care except it's real U.S. troops getting killed/mutilated/harmed, coming home to mostly piss-poor treatment and minimal help because G.Shrub thinks they are in an exciting/enobling war that he would give anything to be in now though he avoided it like the plague when he could have (Vietnam).

Yeah, I have a bad attitude about it. I also think al soddomite needs killing - and his followers the same if they don't skulk away.
 
Nogbad said:
The surge is often talked about as if it was some cunning master plan. In actuality it is just more boots on the ground to keep a tin lid on things.
Click to expand...
Not true at all! It's also a completely different strategy - for example, troops are no longer confined to a few large military bases but are spread out in many smaller bases to keep a more constant presence in problem areas. It also entails seeking the cooperation (and in many cases getting it) of insurgents and turning them to our side of the conflict. In many cases, US soldiers are fighting side by side with Iraqis who once fought them.

That the deaths among Iraqis and troops have gone down is indisputable, what needs to happen is for the Iraqis to take advantage of this situation and get the political process moving. Unfortunately, Petraeus can't do that for them.
 
So is Al-Sadr some Iraqi Gerry Adams or something similar? Is he officially a fugitive and someone the US would be allowed to stick a bullet through?

I heard a while back he wouldn't mind seeing a 'Islamic democracy' in Iraq, but I'm not sure what he positions are on if he wants to be a caliph one day or not.
 
Last edited:
Undesired Walrus said:
So is Al-Sadr some Iraqi Gerry Adams or something similar? Is he officially a fugitive and someone the US would be allowed to stick a bullet through?

I heard a while back he wouldn't mind seeing a 'Islamic democracy' in Iraq, but I'm not sure what he positions are on if he wants to be a caliph one day or not.
Click to expand...
Al Sadr's influence is waning, he is not drawing the crowds and support he once did. I think we should just let this continue to happen, putting a bullet in him now would just make him a martyr and revive his movement from near-death.
 
He doesn't exactly have the good looks of Bin Laden, so I'm surprised he held their attention for this long!
 
WildCat said:
Not true at all! It's also a completely different strategy - for example, troops are no longer confined to a few large military bases but are spread out in many smaller bases to keep a more constant presence in problem areas. It also entails seeking the cooperation (and in many cases getting it) of insurgents and turning them to our side of the conflict. In many cases, US soldiers are fighting side by side with Iraqis who once fought them.

That the deaths among Iraqis and troops have gone down is indisputable, what needs to happen is for the Iraqis to take advantage of this situation and get the political process moving. Unfortunately, Petraeus can't do that for them.
Click to expand...

:) OK it is more boots on the ground in a configuration that is more useful. I take it Rumsfeld is carrying the can for the original plan?

Agreed there is a limit to what we can do.
 
LordoftheLeftHand said:
I thought the goal of the surge was the spend more money, which I think was a success.

LLH
Click to expand...

I thought the goal was to give another reason to thwart Democratic attempts to end the occupation and begin drawing down forces?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom