Reality of the Surge Options

[Hellfighter]

My view;
A smartly run military campaign.
.... however McCain and other neocons are perhaps patting 'themselves' too early for supporting it;
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23382421

Firstly - the current 'Surge' was supposed to have ended six months ago.
The Surge's main- MAIN- purpose was not directly about killing off al quaeda, but to get the Iraqi government to finally act as one solid front - that has not succeeded -> their may be improvements in that goal, but it hasn't been accomplished-still.

Secondly the Surge was supposed to mean a reduction in troop strength to reduce the stress on the soldiers involved in excessive rotations. The neo-cons tend to assume soldiers are wind-up toys with energizer batteries in them rather than dedicated hman beings. Is it no wonder thre are so many soldiers returning from Iraq feeling disenfranchised by society and 'preferring' to live out of the norms of society once they get back and as we see in shameful large numbers in homeless conditions ['support the troops' was the hollow neocon mantra for the longest while. Now they're surprised why their flag-waving antics no longer work].
Troop numbers in Iraq are still very high.
Of course the argument that tactically a troop withdrawal would lead to a disaster. But get real. The Surge Generals know all is not hunky-dory just because territory is gained and all seems quiet for now regarding the Sunnis in the north and south, and the still potent Shiite militias held-back by a ceasefire agreement. Iran is quite. People are waiting in the wings. We tend in the West to view progress from our perspective -enemy quiet= enemy defeated. They're being 'clever' for lack of a better word. You can bet they are using this quiet time to plan their own surge when the time is right - US troops whether McCain or a Dem is in charge WILL be reduced when thins seem quiet enough -and that's when the enem/enemies will strike and launch their civil war.
There's no doubt also that al quaeda's 'ground force's are on the run - but their suicide bombers can still lurk anywhere in Iraq. All they need to do / and are doing is to keep maintaining 2 or 3 horrid suicide attacks a month to keep things destabilized there.
Note how the media over here now rarely mentions the suicide attacks in Iraq. They're in'Surge is working' mode. Just like they ignored Afghanistan has been in worse shape.

Finally why did the Surge 'work'. 'Awakening Alliance'- the Sunni private armies that are contesting al quaeda. The Surge is only progressing in terms of territory due to the Awakening Alliance 'watching the six' of the the Surge's tail. The amount of US troops freed up by this comfort in not having to leave considerable troops back to solidify gained ground is an impressive reason for the successes - not to mention al Sadr's militias being quiet in Baghdad -temporarily. Then another reason things are calmed - the ethnic cleansing of neighbourhoods by gangs of demons succeeded to the point where there were no more 'undesirables' left to kill - so it appeared they had been stopped when in fact they had themselves no reason to continue their mayhem.
So that are measuring success in Iraq from a tunnel-minded vision need to look at the bigger picture, and the reality in total the mainstream media are failing to let you know about - and in fact are misleading you about. It's not too difficult to find out how everything is currently balanced on the edge of a blade over there.

[Blitz]

My view;
A smartly run military campaign.
.... however McCain and other neocons are perhaps patting 'themselves' too early for supporting it;
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23382421

Firstly - the current 'Surge' was supposed to have ended six months ago.
The Surge's main- MAIN- purpose was not directly about killing off al quaeda, but to get the Iraqi government to finally act as one solid front - that has not succeeded -> their may be improvements in that goal, but it hasn't been accomplished-still.

Secondly the Surge was supposed to mean a reduction in troop strength to reduce the stress on the soldiers involved in excessive rotations. The neo-cons tend to assume soldiers are wind-up toys with energizer batteries in them rather than dedicated hman beings. Is it no wonder thre are so many soldiers returning from Iraq feeling disenfranchised by society and 'preferring' to live out of the norms of society once they get back and as we see in shameful large numbers in homeless conditions ['support the troops' was the hollow neocon mantra for the longest while. Now they're surprised why their flag-waving antics no longer work].
Troop numbers in Iraq are still very high.
Of course the argument that tactically a troop withdrawal would lead to a disaster. But get real. The Surge Generals know all is not hunky-dory just because territory is gained and all seems quiet for now regarding the Sunnis in the north and south, and the still potent Shiite militias held-back by a ceasefire agreement. Iran is quite. People are waiting in the wings. We tend in the West to view progress from our perspective -enemy quiet= enemy defeated. They're being 'clever' for lack of a better word. You can bet they are using this quiet time to plan their own surge when the time is right - US troops whether McCain or a Dem is in charge WILL be reduced when thins seem quiet enough -and that's when the enem/enemies will strike and launch their civil war.
There's no doubt also that al quaeda's 'ground force's are on the run - but their suicide bombers can still lurk anywhere in Iraq. All they need to do / and are doing is to keep maintaining 2 or 3 horrid suicide attacks a month to keep things destabilized there.
Note how the media over here now rarely mentions the suicide attacks in Iraq. They're in'Surge is working' mode. Just like they ignored Afghanistan has been in worse shape.

Finally why did the Surge 'work'. 'Awakening Alliance'- the Sunni private armies that are contesting al quaeda. The Surge is only progressing in terms of territory due to the Awakening Alliance 'watching the six' of the the Surge's tail. The amount of US troops freed up by this comfort in not having to leave considerable troops back to solidify gained ground is an impressive reason for the successes - not to mention al Sadr's militias being quiet in Baghdad -temporarily. Then another reason things are calmed - the ethnic cleansing of neighbourhoods by gangs of demons succeeded to the point where there were no more 'undesirables' left to kill - so it appeared they had been stopped when in fact they had themselves no reason to continue their mayhem.
So that are measuring success in Iraq from a tunnel-minded vision need to look at the bigger picture, and the reality in total the mainstream media are failing to let you know about - and in fact are misleading you about. It's not too difficult to find out how everything is currently balanced on the edge of a blade over there.

By no stretch of the imigination did the governmet handle the start of things correctly. They did quickly beat the republican guard but they did not have a plan on anything else. It has taken a long time to realize the new role that needed to be done.
Rummsfeld was warned by gernerals that his light force plan was not going to work for phase 2 but he stuck with it anyway. The military was able to control sectors but did not have the presence to shut anything down.
They also had an early oppertunity to work with the tribal leaders in regions and turned them down out of arragonce or stupidty. We are having some success because we are now working with the tribal leaders and showing them the respect they deserved. as well as having an Iraqi troops trained.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/20...la-tribal_N.htm

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=16211974

A couple of graphs.

http://newsbusters.org/static/2008/02/2008-02-25Surge.JPG

http://newsbusters.org/static/2008/02/2008-02-25Surge2.JPG

and a story
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...qcongress_N.htm


I would suggest that the reason the casualty numbers and attacks did not drop at the start of the surge was because we started to go into the terrorist strongholds and hunt them down. Now they are more scattered or killed and they are running out of strongholds. Being on the offensive EVERYWHERE has helped.

The Iraqi council is making progress....
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wo...,0,969545.story
but there is still work to do...
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkx-3oY...s98w8wD8V2TU9G1

Re-read the Usa-today story. Is that the political progress they wanted?
Or will they move the goalpost again?
ou know, they won't have elections, they wont be able to elect a government, they cant get a constitution...

I think it's really silly for people to stand over here in the states and tell a fledgling democracy Hurry up and get this major of a task done on this exact timeline or you are all failures.

I believe it took 5 years before germany was a country and I think they were a lot closer to being a truer country than Iraq was under Sadam.

[Hellfighter]

I agree with you about the actuality of a political situation stabilizing but let's be real about what is actually feasible in Iraq. It's been 5 years in Iraq so far and the US generals will more than likely all tell you nothing seems for sire regarding the Iraqi government - there are divisive major factions waiting in the wings all over the place waiting for their opportunity to pick any gains apart. The whole situation can come apart at the seams very quickly... that is the reality.

My point regarding the Surge is Bush again being deceitful.... he was given the means to do the Surge in the first place upon/within the confines of certain conditions -and a timeframe inn which he would assesss benchmarks met and cutback on troop deployments.

The surge failed regarding those benchmarks and goals - militarily its successful, but overall what does it mean if al quaeda can still kill scores of people a week with their covert suicide bomber elements- and what does it mean if the Awakening Alliance is showing signs of fracturing, and the shiite militias are still unarmed and waiting to go to battle stations.

My point remains the same forthe past several years..... its all about the Iraqi army coming into its own as a potent fighting force. Without that the coalition are going to play 'police' force for a hundred years there as Sen.McCain professed. That's not fair to the US troops doing 3 or 4 tours under tense combat situations and then not being cared for regarding serious mental fatigue afflictions. And then there's the cost factor, what miracles can be performed in cleaning up gang-ravaged neighbourhoods and getting the poorest neighbourhoods/rural areas a kickstart in meaningful developement over here with a trillion bucks.


Robert -can we get the 'edit posts' enabled please lol- I'm making laughable typos that need fixing !



This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 02/29/08 1:41pm

[Blitz]

My point regarding the Surge is Bush again being deceitful.... he was given the means to do the Surge in the first place upon/within the confines of certain conditions -and a timeframe inn which he would assesss benchmarks met and cutback on troop deployments.

Robert -can we get the 'edit posts' enabled please lol- I'm making laughable typos that need fixing !

A politican being deciteful.... say it's not so, I thought that was the defenition of politican?

IMO we blew the first 3 years as far as getting the poliical situation started on the right path, and the idea of creating green zones and letting other areas go to hell was a mistake, it did not make any friends with the people we left to suffer in the violent areas.

I just think we are finally getting some traction and the progress in the last year has been more than the previous 3 combined. I don't see how cutting out now achieves anything? You are correct the enemy is waiting back. They know we have elections coming and are hoping we leave so they can take over.
If we split now the last 5 years were for nothing in the long run.

The terrorists are working on a 30 year plan so to speak, and we want instant gratifiation and 1 year turn arounds.
If we had a president with vision he would have been working on a 30 year plan bringing political, economic, and military pressure to all the terrorists, We would have been rapidly pursung energy independance 5 years ago, changing trade reqirements, supporting opposition parties in countries abroad, and in general makng it miserable for counries that support terrorism.
We were supposed to be at war with radical islam, but in reality we as a country have lost focus on the big picture. The enemy has not, they want an entire islamic world controlled under shira law

We at least are headed in a constant diretion, the tribal chiefs are starting to come around, the council is moving forward and if they can get the oil money dispursed evenly so that every religious region has a win i think in a couple more years (3 to 5) it will be a major sucess.

We are sill a LONG ways away, but I feel that because we blew the first couple years we are really only about a year and a half in using an effective stragety.

I would like to at least here somone layout the outcome and long term analysis if we left and compare that against sticking it out to the finish. We all know the reason why to leave, everyone just leaves out the reality of what would happen if we did and would it make the world better?

Timetables and goals are great, and they provide a measuring stick, but because we miss them should that mean we quit?

Druid, the edit function would be great, my keyboard is beat and although my spelling is ok I can't even type "the" without proof reading.

[Hellfighter]

Druid, the edit function would be great, my keyboard is beat and although my spelling is ok I can't even type "the" without proof reading.

sounds like a majority vote won!

On the 'things look good now' in Iraq. I think the pattern we see there is every 2 or so months after a bad period of violence we have the illusion things are getting better, then something erupts to make a mess again; I wish things were really getting better overall, but I think the bad guys are just waiting to strike - here's the real optimum scenario ; let's say McCain was Prez... the situation looked stable for 6 months -and then he had no choice but to start long overdue withdrawals. That's when things would flare up again in my opinion- at some point we'd believe everything was stable, but there are too many radicals - I think getting the Iraqi army to get there hands dirty in real combat is the only way to build stability there.

ps. Where did you see 30 year plan by terrorists ...... If we keep overindulging there, it could alternately be 30 years for nothing if the situation doesn't improve. I doubt anyone could layout plan A's and B's for Iraq with its ongoing fluid and volatile situation.



This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 02/29/08 1:40pm

[Blitz]

ps. Where did you see 30 year plan by terrorists ...... If we keep overindulging there, it could alternately be 30 years for nothing if the situation doesn't improve. I doubt anyone could layout plan A's and B's for Iraq with its ongoing fluid and volatile situation.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html

My point on the 30 year plan is that the islamic terrorists have been taking swipes at us ( and anyone who does not follow their strict doctrine) for over 30 years and longer. They do not have a military "plan" so to speak but they are all working towards the same goal of creating an islamic world ruled under shira law.

Unless we all wake up and define the enemy for what it is and fight it with all our political and military might they will keep taking swipes at us forever. We must either destroy them or be detroyed. Their radical religous views cannot be bartred with for the long haul. They will take whatever we give, strike at you again and ask for more. (see the history of israel)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hur_vyU-LUw

[Hellfighter]

Unless we all wake up and define the enemy for what it is and fight it with all our political and military might they will keep taking swipes at us forever. We must either destroy them or be detroyed. Their radical religous views cannot be bartred with for the long haul. They will take whatever we give, strike at you again and ask for more. (see the history of israel)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hur_vyU-LUw

Militarily its impossible to wipe them out.
Politically it'll never happen -the extremists as you say ultimately want everything their way.
The only feasible solution in my mind and the general consensus I think is by changing the hearts of the upcoming younger generations to live in a world of mutual respect. Only that way will the cycle of bitter violence stop.
It seems 'choirs and angels' but that seems the only realistic choice as opposed the continuous 'tit for tat' revenge attack for revenge attack cycle. These types of acts only create father-less kids who seek to strike back with hatred and are easy recruit material for the extremists. Captured al aquada 'fighters' in Iraq have said the abu Ghareb prison pics were the biggest recruitment inspiration for avengers to swell their ranks. Extremists rely on their fear and message of vengeance - they have billions ofMuslims to seek out the small percentage extremist nutters willing to go all the way. Nope-in my books military means can plug a gap but won't drain the dam.



This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 03/02/08 9:18am

[Shred]

While there are things that embolden the terrorists, you can make the argument that having a strong military reaction has had an intimidating effect.



If an Al Qaeda leaves his tent to go find a sheep, and comes back to find a 20 feet deep crater, thats intimidating.



They are just termites anyway. If they show up in my neighborhood, I turn into Orkin Man.

[Blitz]

I believe you are correct in changing their hearts and minds is the answer.
The only question is how?
In my opinion if you are an extremist form of government that treats women like subhumans, you indoctrinate you children to become marters, and live by the philosophy of jihad the entire world should shut you out and let you rot as a country.
The only problem is they have ONE single thing we are willing to trade for, oil!

The "west" has for far to long been poked with a stick by these tyrants because they have something we want. We should be rapidly looking to eliminate the need for their oil as an energy / national security policy.
It needs to be done in a way so that emerging countries like china will have access to the new technologies rather than just buying the oil from the terrorist states in the middle east.

Once you take away the one and only chip they have in the game, we can demand that if you want our help in becoming a 21st century nation we have a few "requests".

If we were a serious country that cared about national security we would demand that from our politicans!
http://www.votesmart.org/

The upside of Iraq, is that if in the long there is a pro democracy nation in the middle east, that allows all of the non-jihad loving forms of islam to practice their religon.
If it becomes a nation that can build wealth, technology, and the inferstructure to fit in with the modern world on other exports besides oil.
It could be a beacon for the people that are not free in their other countries to flee to, as well as to set the example that the west is not out on a "crusade" to destroy islam, just that we have no tolerance for the jihadist thugs and dictators running their countries.

A free and modern Iraq that trades with the world, grows as a power economically and has free people that prosper under it's own government would radically change the calculus in the middle east.

[Hellfighter]

Yes, militarily we can win battles against them forever ... the US and Coalition forces prove it beyond a doubt that these brave terrorists are potent only in cowardly sneak attacks and bombing entire neighbourhoods. But winning war seems an impossibility - as long as they can recruit, they'll have the numbers to last as long as our resolve to outlast them. A psycho terrorist has a single-minded purpose; destroy and prepare be destroyed while destroying.
The ultimate answer depends to a point on the West showing it can dig its heels in and not run away militarily, but in my opinion this will end up decided by the common people on both sides.
The small hateful factions on both sides that enjoy spewing out war-fervoured battle songs and divisive rhetoric assist the terrorists who endeavour to put up walls of division that will keep their potential pool of recruits from being free-thinking and 'sympathizers' to the West's democratic appeals.

The same argument can be in some truth be made by jihaders about the West having for a long time poked a stick into the Arabs for centuries-which is a big case for getting recruitment thriving against the infidels.
On the contrary to your other point though, I think the arab chieftains with the oil aren't the ones doing the poking with sticks. Even Iran which surely wants and someday will have nuke technology do not want to openly be seen/caught poking sticks into the West -bad for their business-not to mention bad for the their health if cruise missiles head their way in response.
If that chip was taken from them I bet all that I own [ not much ] that no one would care less about the Middle East, let alone give it a moment's gossip.

In Iraq we need to keep in mind its not just jihadists tearing the country apart - there's the Kurd terrorist bands poking away at Turkey in the north, Iran supporting shi'ite militias in the center, and Sunni agents from Saudis and Syria in the West and South] also want in on the action. I think with all the other Dictators around in the world not being 'attended' to, its a good bet everyone understands the West is only busy in their region because of the oil. Both Bush prez's have stated that truth too - regarding not letting Arabia hold the world hostage due to the 'oil chip' they have.

My opinion on China is they're already up there as a potent enemy- they have the tech brains, resources, and numbers, and power over its citizens. They're just waiting.


This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 03/02/08 2:38pm

[Shred]

I am very intrigued by China.



Shanghai has turned into a little New York City.



And I understand they are building casinos.



Me love that long time.

[Hellfighter]

I am very intrigued by China.



Shanghai has turned into a little New York City.



And I understand they are building casinos.



Me love that long time.

Yeah - but they banned internet porn !!!!!

[Shred]

Fuck



They need to embrace porn like everyone else.

[Hellfighter]

Fuck



They need to embrace porn like everyone else.

everyone except Russia now too perhaps--------------> NYEEEEEETTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!