Patraeus: Surge a Failure?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Now that I have posted that sidetrack, here is a post I was working on related to sidetracks as a way of avoiding looking at the facts one doesn't like.

So we have a lot of people avoiding the actual issues here by transparent tactics that highlight the fact they are unable to discuss the painful facts.

WildCat is trying to attack the messenger, Joe Biden. Must mean WC cannot address the fact the surge really is failing in everything except lowering the level of violence in Iraq. Trouble is that cannot be sustained and that was supposed to be a means to an end. That end is no closer, a year into the surge. It's duly noted that WC never claimed more than reducing violence was being achieved, but that ignores the goal of reducing the violence.

Mrbaracuda thought he'd be able to discredit last week's testimony of three retired generals by simply claiming they were out of the loop since they are retired. But that fact alone in no way discredits their expertise and current knowledge of the facts. I suggested he point to additional evidence the generals' expertise and current knowledge of the situation was lacking and all he could do was try to pretend I had not answered his point.

BeAChooser posted an article from the Weekly standard claiming falsely that benchmarks were indeed being met and progress was indeed occurring since the surge. Last week's testimony by the 3 generals contradicts that claim and was specific about why the surge was failing.

I pointed out that even the right wing commentator on Fox News, Juan Williams, accused the editor of the Weekly Standard of being a Bush cheerleader and not being factual. I also pointed out that Kristol made a gross error in the past claiming the Sunnis and Shiites would not start a civil war with each other.

BeAChooser has yet to provide further more credible evidence these "benchmarks" were indeed being met.

Not everything has been evasive and sidetracks. Those are just the most blatant ones here avoiding addressing the actual arguments.

Tsukasa Buddha and Darth Rotor have posted things much more honest. So it is possible for intelligent analysis to come from the right a different point of view than mine which I consider to be moderately to the left.

 

[SezMe]

Oh, what's that, you thought this was Petraeus's day? Watch and learn, see how Biden's "questions" will amount to 5 minutes of pontificating, culminating in a loaded question of the "have you stopped beating your wife" variety.

You may be right but he won't be able to break Sen. Boxer's unassailable record that happened (I think) at a previous Iraq hearing. She spent her ENTIRE time allotment bloviating and had to submit her questions in written form.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sorry, I do edit a bit at the end of most of my posts.

 

[prewitt81]

Off-topic discussion split to: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=110866

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: prewitt81

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Thanks, prewitt81. I did want to comment and didn't want to derail. Post 84 needed moving as well. I copied it to the new thread. And 83 since that was the post 84 answered.

 

[prewitt81]

Thanks, prewitt81. I did want to comment and didn't want to derail. Post 84 needed moving as well. I copied it to the new thread. And 83 since that was the post 84 answered.

Right you are. Off they go.

 

[BeAChooser]

Skeptigrl, I'm shocked to learn you believe the SENATE DEMOCRATIC COMMUNICATIONS CENTER is a unbiased source of information.

Don't like the Weekly Standard? Well you'll love this one.

From http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Yzg3OWIwM2I1ODlkMDU2MGY4YjgwMWZmMTYyYWZlZjU= "Rich Lowry, NR editor, April 8, 2008"

It is routinely asserted that only a handful of the benchmarks have been met. In Newsweek in March, columnist Fareed Zakaria darkly noted that a few newly passed laws “add up to only three or four of the 18 benchmarks.”

The benchmarks are much cited, but apparently little read. Of the 18, seven have to do with supporting the surge and the effort to establish security in Baghdad: things like providing three brigades to support operations in the city; establishing joint security stations with U.S. forces in neighborhoods; and reducing sectarian violence and eliminating militia control of local security.

By any standard, almost all these security benchmarks have been met. They were formulated at a time when the Iraqi government’s will to secure Baghdad was in question. Forget three brigades — as Fred Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute points out, soon enough the Iraqis will have three divisions in and around Baghdad. The neutralization of militias has been more problematic, but now Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has declared himself against the most dangerous Shia militia, Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi army.

The highest-profile benchmarks are the seven legislative ones. Four of the key ones have been passed: a law undoing the excesses of de-Baathification; a provision granting amnesty to former insurgents; legislation allowing the formation of semiautonomous regions; and measures setting out provincial powers and a date for provincial elections. Another important one, a hydrocarbons law, is stalled, but the passage of a budget sharing oil revenues around the country serves some of the same function.

The balance of the other benchmarks has to do with the performance of the Iraqi government and protecting minority rights. They are harder to evaluate. Of course, all the grading is somewhat subjective, but roughly 12 of the 18 benchmarks have been met (and there’s been movement on the others), which makes a much less seductive anti-war talking point.

And if you don't believe them ... how about this quote by Senator Jim Inhofe, senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee:

“I returned just last week from my most recent trip to Iraq, where I met with Lt. Gen. Lloyd Austin, Commander Multi-National Corps – Iraq, and was briefed on the current situation. Overall violence in Iraq has decreased dramatically over the past year and American casualties have decreased by 70% since January 2007. The Iraqis have also made significant progress on the political front, as the increased security provided by the surge has enabled the Government of Iraq to meet 12 out of the original 18 benchmarks, including four out of the six key legislative benchmarks.

Or are you going to call him a liar, too?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If you have an objection to the facts in the source I posted, then by all means note it an provide something supporting your point. I may have grabbed a quick source off Google of information I already knew to be supportable factually, (however I can't find the post you are referring to).

When I pointed out the Weekly Standard source you posted was not supportable, I posted the evidence why: Kristol's reputation for error, the generals contradictory evidence, and Juan Williams comments that Kristol was cheer leading the President rather than reporting facts.

I'll address the rest of your post in the next post.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I heard much of Patreaus and Ambassador Crocker's testimony yesterday and they certainly couldn't point to much progress. The supposed benchmarks Lowry is referring to haven't gotten us any closer to leaving Iraq. Patreaus and Crocker both were unable to articulate any progress other than decreased violence to which Patreaus then pointed out the gains were extremely fragile.

So I ask you, BeAC, not to cite an editorial opinion piece, but to point to something in the Congressional testimony yesterday that suggests we are any closer to leaving Iraq than we were a year ago.

 

[mrbaracuda]

Mrbaracuda thought he'd be able to discredit last week's testimony of three retired generals by simply claiming they were out of the loop since they are retired. But that fact alone in no way discredits their expertise and current knowledge of the facts.

You really are an arrogant little ****, aren't you? It was a simple question you still haven't addressed. Then again, since you started to piss me off, I let it go. I didn't claim anything, I didn't try to claim anything but I guess in your fancy world simple questions from foreigners about people you like to cite just have to be transformed into something else than they are.

I suggested he point to additional evidence the generals' expertise and current knowledge of the situation was lacking and all he could do was try to pretend I had not answered his point.

Try to pretend? You still haven't answered it to this day. How about answering a simple question the next time and see what happens? Seriously, you start pissing me off.

Attack the argument, not the arguer.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: prewitt81

 

[SezMe]

And if you don't believe them ... how about this quote by Senator Jim Inhofe, senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee:

“I returned just last week from my most recent trip to Iraq, where I met with Lt. Gen. Lloyd Austin, Commander Multi-National Corps – Iraq, and was briefed on the current situation. Overall violence in Iraq has decreased dramatically over the past year and American casualties have decreased by 70% since January 2007. The Iraqis have also made significant progress on the political front, as the increased security provided by the surge has enabled the Government of Iraq to meet 12 out of the original 18 benchmarks, including four out of the six key legislative benchmarks.

Or are you going to call him a liar, too?

Why the big grin? Yes, I am going to call Inhofe a liar.

James Inhofe (R-OK) is a liar.

2007 was the deadliest year for USA combat troops in Iraq.

 

[Ziggurat]

James Inhofe (R-OK) is a liar.

2007 was the deadliest year for USA combat troops in Iraq.

Your statement doesn't actually contradict Inhofe's statement, so why are you calling him a liar? Combat tempo increased with the surge (that was part of the point: put more boots on the ground so we could perform more operations), and so fatality rates initially increased. By the end of the year, that rate had decreased significantly from what it was at the beginning of the year.