Poll: Majority mistrustful of upcoming Iraq report

[Thomas Veil]

Apparently our minds are made up. And that's not necessarily a bad thing.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A majority of Americans don't trust the upcoming report by the Army's top commander in Iraq on the progress of the war and even if they did, it wouldn't change their mind, according to a new poll.

President Bush frequently has asked Congress -- and the American people -- to withhold judgment on his so-called troop surge in Iraq until Gen. David Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, U.S. ambassador to Iraq, issue their progress report in September.

But according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released Thursday, 53 percent of people polled said they suspect that the military assessment of the situation will try to make it sound better than it actually is. Forty-three percent said they do trust the report.

CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said he doesn't think the mistrust is directed at Petreaus as much as it is what he represents.

Holland said, "I suspect most people are hearing the words 'general' and 'Iraq' and that's what they're basing their opinion on."

He added, "It does seem to indicate that anyone associated with the Bush administration may be a less than credible messenger for the message that there is progress being made in Iraq."

Another interesting thing about the poll, Holland said, is that it indicates that about half of those surveyed -- 47 percent -- feel that the military is making progress in Iraq, although slightly more -- 49 percent -- do not.

White House press secretary Tony Snow reacted to the poll, saying that he hoped that "people do not try to engage in personal attacks on Gen. Petraeus or Ambassador Crocker."...

The poll indicates that most of America's mind is made up about the war -- 72 percent said the report will have no effect on their view of the war.

Of those opposed to the war, 47 percent said Petreaus' report could not change their mind while 17 percent said it could....See Enn Enn (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/16/poll.iraq.report/index.html)

You almost have to laugh: Americans have become so distrustful of the Bush administration that apparently Dubya, Cheney, Tony Snow and that entire gang can talk until they're blue in the face and nobody will believe them. It'd be funny if it wasn't so utterly pathetic.

Oh...and Tony Snow comes across as an ass again. :rolleyes:

[ham_man]

And Democrats get on Republicans for ignoring the truth...?

[miloblithe]

And Democrats get on Republicans for ignoring the truth...?

What truth would are you accusing Democrats of ignoring?

[obeygiant]

Is 'mistrustful" really a word?

[ham_man]

What truth would are you accusing Democrats of ignoring?
That the surge is working. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30pollack.html?ex=1187755200&en=a92f6a813c2a41ec&ei=5070)

[Ugg]

That the surge is working. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30pollack.html?ex=1187755200&en=a92f6a813c2a41ec&ei=5070)



Also from the NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html?em&ex=1187755200&en=d7c043df97c7aa3e&ei=5087%0A):

The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework.

The Iraqis need to deal with it by themselves. We're about as useful and as effective as a bull in a china shop.

[SC68Cal]

That the surge is working. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30pollack.html?ex=1187755200&en=a92f6a813c2a41ec&ei=5070)

Kenneth M. Pollack has his own axe to grind. He wrote a book justifying the cause for going to war in Iraq, after all. "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq"

An Op-Ed piece, by a biased author != Fact.

Nobody bothers to check sources anymore. You just google and paste and and think you can win an argument.

[Thomas Veil]

That the surge is working. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30pollack.html?ex=1187755200&en=a92f6a813c2a41ec&ei=5070)Let me put it this way. Even given the generous assumption that this is true, why would the public be so doubtful? Because we've all heard this song and dance before. Many times. Every three months, almost like clockwork, it's been, "Things are getting better in Iraq. Just be patient."

And let's not forget the insurgents who were in their final throes...a year and a half ago.

Come on. You get conned by somebody once, shame on them. You get conned multiple times...you can't get fooled again. Or something.

[solvs]

That the surge is working. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30pollack.html?ex=1187755200&en=a92f6a813c2a41ec&ei=5070)

Isn't that the op-ed that was floating around for awhile before widely being dismissed as inaccurate at best? That had no proof to back up it's assertions, the reality being the contrary? That the authors themselves are back pedaling from? That article? What else you got?

The problem isn't ignoring the truth, obviously. We're just tired of hearing the same song and dance from the same people who got us into this mess in the first place. The same things they've been saying for how long now? It's a lose-lose situation for them for a reason. He can't say things are going bad, as we know they are, because then it would wreck what little the admin has left. If he does, it's all over. If he says things are going well, we won't believe him because we know it isn't true, no matter what the administration tries to say. Especially since they're the ones writing the report, based on his assessment, that we weren't even supposed to hear because it was all going to be behind closed doors.

This is just another delay tactic, and we've been sick of it for a long time now.

[skunk]

Since we've already heard that the report will be written by the White House, why would anyone believe it anyway? Might as well be co-authored by Dr Pangloss and Hans Christian Andersen.

[Swarmlord]

Since we've already heard that the report will be written by the White House, why would anyone believe it anyway? Might as well be co-authored by Dr Pangloss and Hans Christian Andersen.

At least from your armchair, you can speak authoritatively on the status of the surge.

[Ugg]

At least from your armchair, you can speak authoritatively on the status of the surge.

Is the truth more readily visible from your ivory tower?

[mactastic]

At least from your armchair, you can speak authoritatively on the status of the surge.
Another drive-by insult, courtesy of a member of the 101st Fighting Keyboardists...

That the surge is working. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30pollack.html?ex=1187755200&en=a92f6a813c2a41ec&ei=5070)
The surge was supposed to provide breathing room so that Iraq's political reconciliation could occur. You seen any evidence of that? I see a game of whack-a-mole going on. Sure there's progress in one hole, but that's 'cause they all just packed up and went to a different area to cause trouble. And even those areas where you can point to a decrease in violence aren't evidence of the political goals this surge was supposed to produce.

Oh, and O'Hanlon and Pollack are hardly opponents of the war. Although I'm sure the news sources you use didn't mention that, right? They were shepherded around by the military, never outside the Green Zone for more than 4-6 hours at a time, and a third person who went with them saw things quite differently (http://www.csis.org/index.php?option=com_csis_pubs&task=view&id=3994).

And just FYI - that piece you link to is from the opinion section. Not the news section. I know Rush and Hannity and all the other righty bloviators from McCain to Darth Dick have been hailing this as "news" that provides evidence that the surge is a smashing success, but it's really not.

[obeygiant]

Those who oppose the surge- you'd like it to work wouldn't you?

How long would you give to see if the surge really is working?

[miloblithe]

Those who oppose the surge- you'd like it to work wouldn't you?

How long would you give to see if the surge really is working?

Do you see what the issue is here for people who don't trust the administration? If you allow the administration to require that we give each new strategy more and more time to work and then allow then to switch strategies when each one is implausible to call a success, this administration will never be accountable and will not make any move to reduce the US military presence in Iraq. It all just seems like delay tactics to pass the buck.

We've given this strategy more than half a year, and so far the two main results seem to be increased US fatalities and a deteriorating Iraqi political situation.

[mactastic]

But hey, as long as we're posting opinion pieces (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)...
The War As We See It
Viewed from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day. (Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.)

The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the “battle space” remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers’ expense.

A few nights ago, for example, we witnessed the death of one American soldier and the critical wounding of two others when a lethal armor-piercing explosive was detonated between an Iraqi Army checkpoint and a police one. Local Iraqis readily testified to American investigators that Iraqi police and Army officers escorted the triggermen and helped plant the bomb. These civilians highlighted their own predicament: had they informed the Americans of the bomb before the incident, the Iraqi Army, the police or the local Shiite militia would have killed their families.

As many grunts will tell you, this is a near-routine event. Reports that a majority of Iraqi Army commanders are now reliable partners can be considered only misleading rhetoric. The truth is that battalion commanders, even if well meaning, have little to no influence over the thousands of obstinate men under them, in an incoherent chain of command, who are really loyal only to their militias.

Similarly, Sunnis, who have been underrepresented in the new Iraqi armed forces, now find themselves forming militias, sometimes with our tacit support. Sunnis recognize that the best guarantee they may have against Shiite militias and the Shiite-dominated government is to form their own armed bands. We arm them to aid in our fight against Al Qaeda.

However, while creating proxies is essential in winning a counterinsurgency, it requires that the proxies are loyal to the center that we claim to support. Armed Sunni tribes have indeed become effective surrogates, but the enduring question is where their loyalties would lie in our absence. The Iraqi government finds itself working at cross purposes with us on this issue because it is justifiably fearful that Sunni militias will turn on it should the Americans leave.

In short, we operate in a bewildering context of determined enemies and questionable allies, one where the balance of forces on the ground remains entirely unclear. (In the course of writing this article, this fact became all too clear: one of us, Staff Sergeant Murphy, an Army Ranger and reconnaissance team leader, was shot in the head during a “time-sensitive target acquisition mission” on Aug. 12; he is expected to survive and is being flown to a military hospital in the United States.) While we have the will and the resources to fight in this context, we are effectively hamstrung because realities on the ground require measures we will always refuse — namely, the widespread use of lethal and brutal force.

Given the situation, it is important not to assess security from an American-centered perspective. The ability of, say, American observers to safely walk down the streets of formerly violent towns is not a resounding indicator of security. What matters is the experience of the local citizenry and the future of our counterinsurgency. When we take this view, we see that a vast majority of Iraqis feel increasingly insecure and view us as an occupation force that has failed to produce normalcy after four years and is increasingly unlikely to do so as we continue to arm each warring side.

Coupling our military strategy to an insistence that the Iraqis meet political benchmarks for reconciliation is also unhelpful. The morass in the government has fueled impatience and confusion while providing no semblance of security to average Iraqis. Leaders are far from arriving at a lasting political settlement. This should not be surprising, since a lasting political solution will not be possible while the military situation remains in constant flux.

The Iraqi government is run by the main coalition partners of the Shiite-dominated United Iraqi Alliance, with Kurds as minority members. The Shiite clerical establishment formed the alliance to make sure its people did not succumb to the same mistake as in 1920: rebelling against the occupying Western force (then the British) and losing what they believed was their inherent right to rule Iraq as the majority. The qualified and reluctant welcome we received from the Shiites since the invasion has to be seen in that historical context. They saw in us something useful for the moment.

Now that moment is passing, as the Shiites have achieved what they believe is rightfully theirs. Their next task is to figure out how best to consolidate the gains, because reconciliation without consolidation risks losing it all. Washington’s insistence that the Iraqis correct the three gravest mistakes we made — de-Baathification, the dismantling of the Iraqi Army and the creation of a loose federalist system of government — places us at cross purposes with the government we have committed to support.

Political reconciliation in Iraq will occur, but not at our insistence or in ways that meet our benchmarks. It will happen on Iraqi terms when the reality on the battlefield is congruent with that in the political sphere. There will be no magnanimous solutions that please every party the way we expect, and there will be winners and losers. The choice we have left is to decide which side we will take. Trying to please every party in the conflict — as we do now — will only ensure we are hated by all in the long run.

At the same time, the most important front in the counterinsurgency, improving basic social and economic conditions, is the one on which we have failed most miserably. Two million Iraqis are in refugee camps in bordering countries. Close to two million more are internally displaced and now fill many urban slums. Cities lack regular electricity, telephone services and sanitation. “Lucky” Iraqis live in gated communities barricaded with concrete blast walls that provide them with a sense of communal claustrophobia rather than any sense of security we would consider normal.

In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, “We need security, not free food.”

In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.

Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.

We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through.

Buddhika Jayamaha is an Army specialist. Wesley D. Smith is a sergeant. Jeremy Roebuck is a sergeant. Omar Mora is a sergeant. Edward Sandmeier is a sergeant. Yance T. Gray is a staff sergeant. Jeremy A. Murphy is a staff sergeant.

[mactastic]

Those who oppose the surge- you'd like it to work wouldn't you?

How long would you give to see if the surge really is working?
As much time as Bush said it would take to see progress when he announced the surge? Would that be fair?

[SC68Cal]

As much time as Bush said it would take to see progress when he announced the surge? Would that be fair?

Didn't he say back in January that we would see progress by now? It just seems that as time goes on he changes where the finish line is. Now it's just a "snapshot", soon it'll be "forget about it"

[leekohler]

As much time as Bush said it would take to see progress when he announced the surge? Would that be fair?

And of course it isn't working, but Bush will try to say it is working and he just needs more time- again. :rolleyes:

[solvs]

At least from your armchair, you can speak authoritatively on the status of the surge.
We're still there. Things continue to get worse. There's still no exit strategy. It ain't working.

Ask anyone who's been there who doesn't have a political agenda, who isn't heavily escorted through the green zone, and they'll tell you the same.

Those who oppose the surge- you'd like it to work wouldn't you?
That was a loaded question, but I'll bite.

Of course. We would have liked it to have been over and done with years ago, with us winning. Some of us would have rather focused on the real terrorists in the 'stans before even thinking of going elsewhere. With better reasons that didn't turn out to be false. It's not our fault the administration lost the war. Which they are losing. We don't want to lose, we don't want people continuing to die. Duh! But some of us question the reasoning and see things for what they are, what they have been. A mess. And we're tired of the same people who screwed things up telling us they're fixing it, only to tell us the same thing later, and still wanting more time. You can't blame us for years of them saying things are getting better while we all we see is them progressively get worse.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice... can't get fooled again.

How long would you give to see if the surge really is working?
4 years ago.

How much longer are you willing to give it until we admit we aren't getting anywhere?

[Swarmlord]

We're still there. Things continue to get worse. There's still no exit strategy. It ain't working.

Ask anyone who's been there who doesn't have a political agenda, who isn't heavily escorted through the green zone, and they'll tell you the same.

<snip>

That's where you are wrong. My problem is that I do base my opinion on personal discussions with troops that have been over there rather than the NYT or other "media" sources. The bottom line is that the improvements outweigh the setbacks, so progress is being made.

There is an exit strategy, it's just that neither the press nor the public have been paying attention. We stabilize the democratically elected government, train their security forces and then gradually withdraw. What do you want, a spiral bound report with the details spelled out along with pictures?

[leekohler]

That's where you are wrong. My problem is that I do base my opinion on personal discussions with troops that have been over there rather than the NYT or other "media" sources. The bottom line is that the improvements outweigh the setbacks, so progress is being made.

We must be talking to different soldiers and the ones I talk to must be biased, because that's not what the ones I know are telling me. They're telling me the exact opposite. They say we should get the hell out and not waste another American life. One of the guys is a 20 year vet retiring soon. I'll take his assessment. He's also a heart surgen, so he's no dummy.

[juanm]

Hi, I'm just curious. In the US, do you always get in the news when there's a bomb in Iraq, or only when it involves american casualties? I don't want to start a fire about this, it's not provocation, I'm just curious. For instance, I usually read online three newspapers: El Pais (Spanish, left), El Mundo (Spanish, right) and Le Monde (French, center) and they always report this kind of news at the same time. I don't have a TV, and I don't listen the radio very often, so I don't know about other media.

[imac/cheese]

I think it is interesting that 43% of the people feel the report will actually be trustworthy. Seeing as the president's and congress's approval ratings are far below 43%, it seems some people still trust the government without approving of them.

[skunk]

At least from your armchair, you can speak authoritatively on the status of the surge.Indeed, and isn't it shameful that I seem to be able to understand the futility and wrongheadedness of the whole fiasco better than the people in the Green Zone?

As for wishing it to fail, you're absolutely right: I want this illegal, criminal and barbarous exercise to end in abject failure, so that it will be many years before any other arrogant, ideologically misguided f*ckwit like your so-called President can even contemplate hijacking your armed forces and the goodwill of the world to pursue his personal agenda at the expense of half a million lives and the stability of an entire region.

[skunk]

I think it is interesting that 43% of the people feel the report will actually be trustworthy. Seeing as the president's and congress's approval ratings are far below 43%, it seems some people still trust the government without approving of them.That's the triumph of Hope over Experience is all.

[IJ Reilly]

Since there's a bombing and US casualties nearly every day, the press has plenty of opportunity to write about both in a single story. Actually, I'm finding it difficult to keep track of US casualties. In the stories about bombings, civilian casualties usually take precedence. The most recent military deaths may not even be mentioned, let alone, the current total.

[Ugg]

Since there's a bombing and US casualties nearly every day, the press has plenty of opportunity to write about both in a single story. Actually, I'm finding it difficult to keep track of US casualties. In the stories about bombings, civilian casualties usually take precedence. The most recent military deaths may not even be mentioned, let alone, the current total.

... and never those of the civilian contractors.

[solvs]

My problem is that I do base my opinion on personal discussions with troops that have been over there rather than the NYT or other "media" sources.
Like lee, I've also heard the exact opposite. Every General that is no longer in command has spoken out against it. Everyone I've talked to who's been there, actually in combat recently say it's not going well. That we've been doing everything wrong. Everything I read coming from the troops themselves say it's not going well. I can post links (http://www.votevets.org/) if you'd like them, or do you not trust them any more than you trust the "media"? That same "liberal media" that was cheerleading the war right along with a bunch of Dems leading up to it and immediately after that BTW, that still isn't doing it's job, but not in the way you think.

Your opinion seems to be based more on neocon talking points than the reality of the situation.

The bottom line is that the improvements outweigh the setbacks, so progress is being made.
For every perceived improvement that we hear only from the administration and it's supporters, we hear so many more setbacks. So many more people injured or killed. So much more destroyed. And it doesn't seem to be getting any better to those of us who read about the escalating violence and fatalities, and have been hearing the same "progress is being made" speeches for the last 4 years.

That and, as I've said many times, if things were going well, we'd be leaving or gone.

What do you want, a spiral bound report with the details spelled out along with pictures?
Any plan would be nice.

Even better if it's an actual plan that doesn't keep changing when things don't go well. Where we have to keep lowing the bar, and we still don't quite get there. Or something realistic. Do you really think we're going to be stabilizing the gov any time soon? Really? How much longer are you willing to wait? How many more people have to die just to get close to back to where they were?

[solvs]

Here's another article that gives some insight:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-palmer/counterinsurgency-for-dum_b_60959.html

It's a little long, and preaching to the converted, but well worth the read.

[Thomas Veil]

Actually, I'm finding it difficult to keep track of US casualties. In the stories about bombings, civilian casualties usually take precedence. The most recent military deaths may not even be mentioned, let alone, the current total.Well, unfortunately this (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/16/iraq.main/index.html) should tell you.

Most of the fatalities throughout the Iraq war have been U.S. military service members, with 3,705 deaths. That number also includes seven civilians working for the Pentagon.

[ham_man]

Even Hillary has said that the surge is working (link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070821/ap_on_el_pr/candidates_iraq_6)). It seems to me that most of y'all had your minds made up before the surge had ever begun...

[IJ Reilly]

Even Hillary has said that the surge is working (link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070821/ap_on_el_pr/candidates_iraq_6)). It seems to me that most of y'all had your minds made up before the surge had ever begun...

A remark too completely grotesque to even consider for a response...

[solvs]

Even Hillary has said that the surge is working (link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070821/ap_on_el_pr/candidates_iraq_6)).
Even it that were true, none of us even like Hillary, so what's your point.

It seems to me that most of y'all had your minds made up before the surge had ever begun...
We knew it was just going to be more of the same. If by some chance it did work, great, we could get the heck out already. We aren't seeing any progress though. Things don't seem to be getting better (they already failed all of the goals outlined in the last report) and we aren't leaving any time soon. We've seen no actual proof it is working. Quite to the contrary, it is just more of the same. Maybe some of us just realized this was yet another stall tactic, with more to follow I'm sure.

Tell me something though, if this report is actually not spin and actually comes out and says the surge isn't working, nothing will, and it's a lost cause, would you still stand by it?

[obeygiant]

Even it that were true, none of us even like Hillary, so what's your point.

There is a good chance shes going to get the Dem Nomination, so you better start warming up. Or vote republican. ;)

[Swarmlord]

There is a good chance shes going to get the Dem Nomination, so you better start warming up. Or vote republican. ;)

Dang! You beat me to it.

[Thomas Veil]

Even Hillary has said that the surge is working (link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070821/ap_on_el_pr/candidates_iraq_6)). It seems to me that most of y'all had your minds made up before the surge had ever begun...We know we've been lied to over and over again about the "need" for the war and the "success" in fighting it. Why shouldn't our minds be made up by now? Do we need to be hit in the head with a hammer for it to penetrate?

And tell me...even if we were winning this war, who is there left in this administration or the military who has enough cred left to convince us of that?

[IJ Reilly]

The purpose of the surge was to create space for political progress. This has not occurred; in fact, the political progress of late has been decidedly in the backwards direction. I suppose if we continue to redefine "working" until it meets the conditions on the ground, then we can say the surge working -- for all the good it will do us.

But this has all been said before, hasn't it?

[ham_man]

The purpose of the surge was to create space for political progress. This has not occurred; in fact, the political progress of late has been decidedly in the backwards direction. I suppose if we continue to redefine "working" until it meets the conditions on the ground, then we can say the surge working -- for all the good it will do us.
The surge, a militiary operation to attain something of order in the country, is working. Unfortunately, the Iraqi politicians are squabbling over sectarian rubbish while their country falls into disrepair, failing to grab at the opportunity that the Americans have given them. Unless there is some leader that can step up and unify the country, I have a feeling that the politics of Iraq could come to resemble that of countries that have become democratic in the past fifty years or so (such as many African nations)...

[SMM]

Even Hillary has said that the surge is working (link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070821/ap_on_el_pr/candidates_iraq_6)). It seems to me that most of y'all had your minds made up before the surge had ever begun...

No, that is not what she said. She said, "Bring them home". She said it in a 'political way'. The 'Surge' is a joke. You do not have a clue as to what you are talking about. This is an non-winable war. We are making every single blunder we did in Vietnam. I suggest you read the history of that war before you just parrot the the WH's propaganda.

The Surge....gag me with a spoon.

[ham_man]

No, that is not what she said. She said, "Bring them home". She said it in a 'political way'. The 'Surge' is a joke. You do not have a clue as to what you are talking about. This is an non-winable war. We are making every single blunder we did in Vietnam. I suggest you read the history of that war before you just parrot the the WH's propaganda.

The Surge....gag me with a spoon.
She said, and I quote, "it's working." Read the article.

[Ugg]

She said, and I quote, "it's working." Read the article.

She said a lot more than that and you know it. Simplifying the news into sound bites seems to be something the republicans excel at. By not reading the context in which those two words were spoken, they are meaningless.

[mactastic]

The surge, a militiary operation to attain something of order in the country, is working.
In other words, we're winning the battles...
Unfortunately, the Iraqi politicians are squabbling over sectarian rubbish while their country falls into disrepair, failing to grab at the opportunity that the Americans have given them.
... yet losing the war.

And you call that success? It's OK with you that US soldiers are giving their lives so that Iraqi politicians can "squabble over sectarian rubbish"? Of course there hasn't been much squabbling lately, what with their two month vacation, has there?

Unless there is some leader that can step up and unify the country, I have a feeling that the politics of Iraq could come to resemble that of countries that have become democratic in the past fifty years or so (such as many African nations)...
Hmmm.... where could we find a guy with the stones to do whatever it takes to bring Iraq into line... Someone who wouldn't hesitate to use "enhanced interrogation techniques" on those who oppose him... Someone who would strip the rights from anyone deemed a "threat to the nation"...

I'm sure we can find the perfect candidate if we look hard enough. Or we could just keep arming both sides and hoping it never comes back to bite us in the ass. That's never happened before, has it?

Oh, and you're wrong (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,242958,00.html) to claim that this surge was never about providing breathing room for political advances.
The money quote from GWB during his announcement of the surge:When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas.
But of course those are just facts...

[IJ Reilly]

The surge, a militiary operation to attain something of order in the country, is working. Unfortunately, the Iraqi politicians are squabbling over sectarian rubbish while their country falls into disrepair, failing to grab at the opportunity that the Americans have given them. Unless there is some leader that can step up and unify the country, I have a feeling that the politics of Iraq could come to resemble that of countries that have become democratic in the past fifty years or so (such as many African nations)...

IOW, by any useful measure, it is not "working."

[mactastic]

She said, and I quote, "it's working." Read the article.
So is everything Hillary Clinton says true? I was under the impression that she is an opportunistic politician who would say anything that she thought would get her more votes. Thankfully you have set me straight, and we may now enter anything Hillary Clinton says as Gospel Proof into the debate record! I see now the error of my ways. Oh what a wise prophet Ms. Clinton is. Such magnificent insight. How could my eyes have been closed to reality all this time. Thank you Mr Man, for showing me the light.

And I'm sure you'll never object to the veracity of any future statement by Ms. Clinton. :p

[solvs]

There is a good chance shes going to get the Dem Nomination, so you better start warming up. Or vote republican. ;)
If she does win, I might as well, because she's just as bad sometimes. And if she pulls the same crap Bushco has, I'll be criticizing her just as much as I do them. More so maybe if I have to vote for her to not get Romney or Rudy. Doubt I'll be alone. Maybe then you guys will actually agree with us for once.

But at this rate, no matter how much I dislike her, she couldn't exactly be much worse than the current screw ups. She kinda can't be. Of course, now that I've said that...

The surge, a militiary operation to attain something of order in the country, is working.
No, it isn't. No matter how many times you say it, it still won't make it true. And we'll continue to prove it with more links. Like the ones Ugg, mac, and I already posted disputing your original opinion piece. Note who wrote the NY Times piece Ugg posted BTW.

We can post more if you'd like.

[SMM]

She said, and I quote, "it's working." Read the article.

This is probably a waste of time, but I will take a crack at it. Ham_man, I really do not think you have any appreciation for the type of war we are in. In fact, we have four distinct players, each with their own agenda.

The US wants to establish a neo-colonial government, friendly to our oil companies. We do not want a democracy that has self-determination. We will gladly leave a permanent peace-keeping force there. Afterall, isn't that why we are building a monolithic embassy compound?

The deposed Baath party of SH wants us out of Iraq and to be back in power. They are our primary enemy.

There is a small group of Islamic extremists, many of them true Al Queda. They are using Iraq to promote their agenda and attract new followers. Odds are they want us to remain there and keep fighting. It is in their interests to keep the conflict going.

Then there is the new ruling party of Iraq. They are the majority of the population, but were under the thumb of the Baath minority. Even now, with SH gone, many of his military leaders dead, and with US troops on the ground, they are unable to stabilize their country. It reminds me of the puppet governments we established in Vietnam. For whatever reason, they lack the willingness to fight.

Then there are the Iraqi people. Most want life to return to normal. Many of the young, and bold, have taken up weapons to rid their country of an occupying army. As they are killed, new ones will pick-up a weapon and take their place. People cannot stand a foreign invader on their homeland. Recently, I watched a short segment about an American platoon in Iraq. They went to a brand-new Iraqi police station to train the Iraqis. When they got there, no one was in sight. A short time later, the new police station blew-up. Then the Iraqis arrived. I have seen this type of thing before. If your ally lacks the desire to fight, then you are fighting alone.

This war is not winnable. The notion that the ‘surge’ is working is utter nonsense. It sounds very much like what Westmoreland said just before the Tet offensive in 1968. He too was claiming significant progress and clear indications that our strategy was working. Surprise!

Our goal is to remain in Iraq. If it costs another 45,000 US lives, the WH and Pentagon feel this is justified to control the world's largest oil reserve. I do not think it was worth a single life.

[mactastic]

Afterall, isn't that why we are building a monolithic embassy compound?
Not to mention some pretty impressive military bases throughout the country...

[imac/cheese]

This is probably a waste of time, but I will take a crack at it. Ham_man, I really do not think you have any appreciation for the type of war we are in. In fact, we have four distinct players, each with their own agenda...

Excellent post. Having recently gotten out of the military, I can confirm that this pretty much sums it up. Especially the part about when some of the young and bold are killed while resisting our forces, new ones take their place. For every "young and bold" Iraqi we kill, we make an enemy of each of their brothers, sisters, parents, cousins, etc.

The problem is that pulling out is a horrible option as well that will lead to even more bloodshed and a civil war power struggle.

[skunk]

Not to mention some pretty impressive military bases throughout the country...I think it's a plot by American architects. Work drying up, is it? ;)

[SMM]

.........snip........

The problem is that pulling out is a horrible option as well that will lead to even more bloodshed and a civil war power struggle.


Yes, all options suck. Such is war, as you seemingly know. But, we will see this war continue to escalate (my opinion). Then we will be still here a year from now, with another several thousand dead, and not have accomplished a thing. It is like the gambler's dilema. They get so much invested and know their fortunes can change with one more roll. But, it does not and soon they have lost it all.

Whoever is left standing in Iraq, it is up to them to decide. That may seem cold, but it is the way it is. We have removed the great despot and most of his leadership. I think if we were out of the way, the Iraqi people woud find a way to resolve it. They have been doing so for 3,000 years. I wish I could say we were blameless in this, but we are not. We created the power vacuum and armed everyone to the teeth. The best thing is to try and provide as much stability as we can as we withdraw.

[obeygiant]

Whoever is left standing in Iraq, it is up to them to decide. That may seem cold, but it is the way it is.

Yeah.. let the chips fall where they may, right? No. Its in the interests of the U.S. and the world to make sure the "people left standing" are moderate, secular leaders.

[Thanatoast]

This sentence from the post above:
Its in the interests of the U.S. and the world to make sure the "people left standing" are moderate, secular leaders.
and this sentence from the post above that:
We created the power vacuum and armed everyone to the teeth.
seem to sum up the problem pretty well to me.

must...not...gnash...teeth...

[Ugg]

Yeah.. let the chips fall where they may, right? No. Its in the interests of the U.S. and the world to make sure the "people left standing" are moderate, secular leaders.

Too late for that. 10% of all Iraqis have left the country and another 10% is displaced internally. You know who the 10% are that left? Yeah, that's right, the moderate secular ones. Who's left, you might ask? The extremists, the islamists and the tribalists.

Given 20 more years and a few trillion dollars, Iraq might just begin to resemble what it was in 2001. Are you up for seeing more Americans killed and a massive increase in taxes in order to see moderates and secularists in power?

[TheAnswer]

Yeah.. let the chips fall where they may, right? No. Its in the interests of the U.S. and the world to make sure the "people left standing" are moderate, secular leaders.

1. Let's work on installing a moderate secular leader here, in our own country, before we go out spreading hypocrisy to the world.

2. They had a moderate and secular leader (not that he wasn't also loathesome spaz), but we took him out because he attacked us on 9/11 was aiding OBL had WMDs his human rights record was worse than our allies in the region as payback because he tried to kill Dubya's daddy.

[SMM]

Yeah.. let the chips fall where they may, right? No. Its in the interests of the U.S. and the world to make sure the "people left standing" are moderate, secular leaders.

We cannot control the outcome. That is the friggin point. We can install a moderate, secular government, yet if the Iraqi people cannot support it, it will collapse like a house of cards. They already have this government in place. So, let's leave. Oh, we have to stay because the majority of the people cannot prevent its collapse? Then who are we fooling?

[SC68Cal]

Yeah.. let the chips fall where they may, right? No. Its in the interests of the U.S. and the world to make sure the "people left standing" are moderate, secular leaders.

I get it.

[solvs]

The problem is that pulling out is a horrible option as well that will lead to even more bloodshed and a civil war power struggle.
Pretty much everything will lead to more bloodshed and struggling. That's why a lot of us are so mad. There really aren't any ways for this to end well thanks to the mistakes of this administration.

Its in the interests of the U.S. and the world to make sure the "people left standing" are moderate, secular leaders.
Yeah... there's no way that's going to happen.

[mactastic]

I think it's a plot by American architects. Work drying up, is it? ;)
Not for me! I got plenty to do these days. Actually this year is a hell of a lot better than last year.

Yeah.. let the chips fall where they may, right? No. Its in the interests of the U.S. and the world to make sure the "people left standing" are moderate, secular leaders.
As opposed to Islamists that are busy cozying up to Iran? Funny also that you deign to speak for the rest of the world -- the bulk of whom have rejected the actions taken by the US in the Middle East.

But of course you daddy-conservatives know what's best for us all, don't you?

[skunk]

1. Let's work on installing a moderate secular leader here, in our own country, before we go out spreading hypocrisy to the world.That would be a good start.

[Thomas Veil]

The Iraq War! New and improved!

WASHINGTON - Freedom's Watch, a conservative group with ties to the Bush administration, launched a multimillion dollar ad blitz Wednesday to pressure lawmakers wavering in their support of the Iraq war to stand strong behind President Bush and resist calls for withdrawal, a move the ads characterize as "surrender."

With this ad campaign, the newly formed nonprofit, which a spokesman said aspires to become a principal mouthpiece for conservative issues, seeks to energize the pro-surge segment of the population and demonstrate to members of Congress that a substantial number of Americans believe that victory in Iraq is not only possible, but essential to America's safety. The monthlong, $15 million television, radio and grassroots campaign is designed to compel lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to continue their support of the war. Ari Fleischer, former White House press secretary and spokesman for the group, told USA Today: "We want to get the message to both Democrats and Republicans: Don't cut and run, fully fund the troops, and victory is the only objective."...MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20411597/)

Well, it's nice to find Ari Fleischer found legitimate employment: selling war.

Interesting that it comes at the same time that Bush is trying to shame us into supporting this war by drawing up the specter of the closing days of the Vietnam War.

And all of this, just by coincidence, comes at the end of August, shortly before Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are to deliver their progress report to Congress.

All along they've sold us this war with scare tactics and lies. And now their adding a new twist: selling it to us as if it were a commodity. Maybe they can arrange a co-op advertising deal with AT&T: "If you support the war, text 'KABOOM' to your congressman. Each message costs 50¢."

[mactastic]

Hmm.. if Ari had actually been, you know, correct about any of his pre-war predictions maybe people would have a reason to believe him now.

Funny thing to, is that this ad is, from what I've heard, primarily targeting Republicans.

[solvs]

I just heard one of the ads. I don't think it's going to help them change any minds. Trying to bridge 9/11 to Iraq just isn't working any more. People are actually getting sick of 9/11 since it's been so politicized, which is kinda sad. But they are getting tired of being scared, and they're tired of Iraq. Talking about those who have died in Iraq and showing those who've been wounded seems like it might just backfire.

Plus we all know how things work when you overhype a product everyone knows is crap, ie Zune, that bad PR can actually make things worse.