Ah...the "surge."

Like so many others over the past five years, this is an interesting conversation that never needed to take place. But I digress.

It's not the "surge" that's having an effect....it's the "purge." Specifically, the realization by Iraqi leaders that the Bush administration is heading for the door in January 2009. No more moving goal posts, no more excuses. Despite billions of dollars and thousands of broken lives the only real incentive for change is the one we never offered...self-determination.

Stumped. I would have simply told Judith I believe the old saw "if all the economists in the world were laid end to end they still would not reach a conclusion. Moreover, I also believe the greatest oxymoron is social scientist.

This Article only articulates the IGNORANCE that passes for knowledge in this Country. First of all, one of the MAIN reasons for the drop in violence is because the Ethnic or Religious purge by the SHIA was mostly completed by the time that the Bush Administration decided send additional Troops while simultaneously Moktada Al-Sadr (Responsible for a significant portion of the killings) had called a Cease Fire when the Troops were arriving. So in other words, a significant amount of Sunnis' had been killed , fled the country or moved to areas where they where either the Majority or in large enough numbers where they felt safe therefore there was and is no need for the violence to flare up as it had for the time being because there was a New Reality called SHIA DOMINANCE in the vital areas of the Country. As for the so-called ANBAR MIRACLE OR CONCERENED CITIZENS, AWAKENING COUNCILS, turning on Al Qaeda and Salafi Jihadists (Two Differant Groups with Differant objectives) was only logical move for them because now they (Sunnis') has to look at a future under SHIA RULE so they turned to their former ALLIES/ENEMIES the US Military and of course we are paying and Arming them which the SHIA CENTRAL GOVERNMENT DO LIKE OR TRUST BUT THEY CANNOT DO A DAMN THING ABOUT. Remember THE sunnis'under SADDAM WAS OUR UNOFFICIAL ALLIES FOR MANY YEARS. Lastly, by focusing on the drop in violence between Sunni & Shia we are missing the real fight between the MAIN SHIA FACTIONS, MADHI & SCIRI WITH THE LATTER BEING ALLIED WITH IRAN AND THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. In fact the leader " Abdul Azziz Al-Hakim is closely allied with the MULLAHS in Iran and the DEATHS OF US SOLDIERS IS SET TO PASS THE ONES IN 07 IN THIS SO FAR 6 HAVE BEEN KILLED IN ONE DAY. Damn this Ascernine Arcticle from this person. They need to do more research outside of the coporate cirle or Green Zone if they have been to IRAQ. Damn you!!

This completely missed the point. The goal of the surge was NOT to reduce violence or American casualties (in fact more casualties were anticipated). The goal was to help the warring parties in Iraq reconcile, by giving them breathing space. This goal has not been met.

The surge didn't meet its goals. Period. There is no evidence that the warring parties are any closer to reconciling than before the surge.

I am amazed at how little understanding is shown in news report after news report on this basic fact. This is just another example: oh, but you have to give Bush some credit for the surge, violence is down. Oh, but you have to give weather prediction some credit; tooth decay is down. Uh, the goal of weather prediction is accurately preparing for future weather. Tooth decay is irrelevant.

Now some will say, oh, but isn't the reduced violence good too? Doesn't the surge get credit for that, even if it wasn't the goal?

Take a good look at the facts on the ground. The new strategy of arming some of the warring groups has nothing to do with the surge; could have been done years ago. It has the distinct down side of directly conflicting with the goal of the surge. Parties that we arm and train in the short term, will be more likely to fight than reconcile later. We have poured gasoline on the flames.

Take a good look also at what it means for violence to be down in Iraq: the country remains an armed camp, incredibly dangerous, that can't even be shown on camera for the most part because it's too dangerous for Western journalists to tape there. People are killed every day for any reason or no reason. If fewer were killed over the last few months, good -- but it remains way more violent than almost any other place on Earth.

And, as has been observed elsewhere, one reason fewer killings per month have gone down recently, is merely because millions of Iraqies have become refugees, or virtual prisoners in their own homes or neighborhoods; it's too unsafe to do otherwise.

So let's please have no more prattle about the surge succeeding: it didn't, it can't be measured by some other goal, and the other goal everyone's misattributing to the surge, basically isn't good news. Meanwhile we set up the conditions for full scale civil war. And we will not be able to change our minds and unfry that egg.

GUESS WHAT????

No war = no surge.

No lies = no dead.

No plan = no exit.

No brains = "surge is working."

Dear PM,
The Democratic candidates should address the fact the Post and other media have reported on the changing tide in Iraq when the Republican candidates admit that such organizations are accurate.

"What will it take for you to say, 'Mr. President, please forgive us -- we didn't agree with your decision, we didn't support your surge, but you know what? We were wrong!'"

---

Success AS MEASURED BY THE ORIGINAL GOALS. This is something we have yet to see from this administration. Failure? Just move the goalposts, as always. In this case, where is the POLITICAL success in Iraq? That used to be the ENTIRE POINT behind the surge. The troops need to go home now, but all that political progress that was supposed to happen hasn't, and won't.

So, success is what it will take. If you were not a liar, you would not have had to ask.

Surge means temporary, not forever. The Bush/Cheney illegal mis-administration can spin 24/7 but that is not going to change anything. John McCain wants to stay a thousand, 100 years in Iraq. Bush says ten years. The Iraqi's say just one more year, but the American people say bring our soldiers home now.

The surge must be working. Since it started we've come up with a whole new way to count dead Iraqis. The old way they just said dead is dead. Now they decide if he was shot in the head or not, and then if he was shot in the front or side or back of the head, then they count only those dead Iraqis who have the right kind of wound in the right part of their head. Guess what, when you compare the bodies found using this new system of counting it is fewer than when they counted the old way. Way to go New Math. Sure we've got more dead Americans then any other year but if they can just come up with a good new way of counting only the ones killed in certain very special ways I bet the number would be much lower and then the surge would really, really be working.

Having been against the incursion in Iraq from the beginning, I find it pitiful that the President and his Administration can take such solice in the "Success of the current surge." The numbers are still horrible, just less horrible. Progress on the Administration's benchmards is less than 50% complete and not showing the progress expected by that very same Administation. The mutual hate for Al Queda is the only thing that keeps Religious differences from turning into full-scale Civil War. We have armed Sunnis and Shiites to the teeth and when Al Queda in Iraq becomes less of a problem, the parties will again be killing each other in an inevitable bloodbath. Such is the history of Religious hatred. We can't stop it, only delay it. We have not seen the worst of the Iraqi bloodshed yet, I believe. I only pray that our Military is not caught in the middle of such an all out Civil War. We must begin to truly disengage and soon.

1. We should not have gone into Iraq when we did. They were no threat to us and hadn't attacked us.
2. When we did go in, it should have been with more like the 400-500,000 troops Shrub was told he would need to conquer and hold.
3. Three years after the start of this debacle, American voters voted out (barely) the Republican rubber stamp Congress. After his party's embarrassing defeat, Shrub got rid of Rummy and proposed competent leadership and the escalation.
4. As a result of the escalation, we suffered the highest death toll for any year of the war in 2007.
5. Some levels of violence are down, but whether or not this can be maintained is questionable, because...
6. We have to draw down troops, starting now, because the escalation isn't sustainable, and
7. The Iraqi government still has made little progress on reconciliation.
8. And when we draw our forces down, if violence returns to pre-escalation levels, was the action successful? Want to bet on the violence level afterwards? Any talk of success is much too premature.
9. And this is without going into the whole Turkey v. Kurds issue or what is happening, or not, in Afghanistan.

To PM in Manassas,

As we move toward the sixth year of president Bush's war in Iraq a person would think there would finally be some indications that the violence has somewhat slackened. After all have we not spent somwwhere in the neighborhood of $500 billion dollars ( I can't be more precise because our government will not tell us the real expenditures), killed hundreds of thousands of people, ruined the futures of countless others and driven millions into refugee camps or into exile. All this was done so that we could find no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, a country that did not threaten us, did not attack us nor had the capability to do so.
Osama Bin Laden was allowed to escape the Tora Bora mountains in November, December of 2001 because George Bush refused to send in 4000 US Marines who were off shore and ready to go up the hill and kill the mastermind of the most successful act of terrorism in history. You can look it up. I am still waiting for an explanation of this, Mr. Bush's gross dereliction of duty. So keep living a life of delusion and thinking that good things will come from Bush's personal war and imagine how ecstatic Bin Laden is to see Bush with more blood on his hands than he does.
Today's newspapers say that Iraq's Minister of Defense sees US troops in his country until 2018. This must be more evidence that the "surge" is working.

When it was proposed, the "surge" was touted as a mechanism aimed at giving breathing room for the Iraqi government to make great progress in its business. remember all that stuff about oil monies allocation, rights for minorities, and all the rest? For those who think the surge has been a success, I suggest you look at that progress.

Many who opposed the surge were perfectly willing to agree that an increase in US military presence would, at least temporarily, shift the military side of the equation. But, by definition, the US prresence is not "succesful" unless the political situation in Iraq also changes. It has not, and the many items the Bush Administration touted as requiring the surge have not been accomplished. look at theior own scorign of the multiple point checklist- barely a third of the items can be classified as having "some progress." So, to be fair, the miliary aspects of the surge are at least somewhat successful- but it has failed utterly in its strategic intent.
it is ironic that those who feel the surge has not been successful because it has not resulted in the political progress promised are also so often accused to trying to direct military tactics. reality is exactly the opposite- the Bush Administration touted the military tactic of the surge as the appropriate way to achieve the political and strategic goals of a stable, functioning government in Iraq. To laud the surge for its military success is to cheer tactics- to criticise is to remain focused on strategic goals.

Mike may be sarcastic, but there is something in what he says. There was an article in the Post on November 13, 2006 titled "Iraq Is Gone. Now What?" By Monica Duffy Toft. She is an historian who studies civil strife from the 30 Years War thru our Civil War to the struggle in Bosnia. She points out that such fights are rarely settled until a great many people are killed. For example, 200,000 were killed in Bosnia which is equivalent to 3 million in Iraq. It may be that the best course of action for us is to pull out, and let them kill themselves until there are ready to talk.

Even if the surge is "working" it was still an awful idea to invade and occupy Iraq. The war was started on a bunch of lies and fought with utter incompetence. So there's a cease fire in the civil war and killings are down? Great. But it still is and always will be a huge, sinful mistake. Period.

PM is absolutely right. All of the leading democrats said the surge would not work and now cannot acknowledge that it has worked. What does this say about their judgment- to be wrong about the most critical issue in which we face. The person who first responded to PM is incorrect in saying that President Bush tried to say things were better than they actually were. I recall him repeatedly and for years stating how troubled he was with the violence and lack of progress and repeatedly warning of more difficulties ahead- so let us try to at least be fair with the facts. He has pointed out at time when there were areas of progress because for whatever reason the media will not report it. No the war has not gone as well as anyone wanted it to go, but thank God the President had the backbone to stay the course when all democrats and many confused republicans were saying lets cut and run and allow the extremist safe haven to stage attacks around the world.

This surge business misses the point. There still is not, at present, a substantial foreign policy objective that warrrants our continued occupation of Iraq with the attendant costs in money and lives. People like McCain can play the hypothetical "but what if they stop shooting at us game," but those of us who are reality-biased see a war of indeterminate duration for no good reason.

You might also point out that the Washington Post admitted months ago (10/14/07) in an editorial that the surge is working. "Better Numbers / The evidence of a drop in violence in Iraq is becoming hard to dispute."

I also want to disagree with the President (and the media's general consensus) that Iraq is getting better. The President says that attacks are down - but he is the one who writes the rules on what an attack is. Despite "attacks being down", death rates are up - particularly death rates for American soldiers. The Pentagon can cover up an attack if it is unsuccessful (ie - no one dies.) However, the Pentagon cannot hide when a person dies.

I just think George Bush is lying about the number of attacks. Death statistics can't lie.

The difference between Bush's supposed failure to acknowledge shortcomings in Iraq, and the Democrats' (and media's) failure to acknowledge the success of the surge, is that... well... Bush is trying to win a war, for Chrissake! Of course he's going to be optimistic. That's what leaders do when the chips are down. No one ever took a hill by saying "OK boys, we're probably gonna get cut to pieces here, but let's give it a try." Bush is erring on the side of optimism because he wants to win. The Democrats and media err on the side of pessimism because they want a humiliating defeat.

"If the Democrats hadn't been voted into Congress in 2006, we wouldn't have had any surge at all. It would have been "stay the course" and Rummy would still be in charge."

Uh Rummy got canned after the election. Also, the criticism of folks like McCain and Lindsey Graham had a lot more to do with Rummy going than any attacks made by the predictable partisans of the left. The Dems in Congress were against the surge too and Bush didn't give a hoot.

Face it, the Dem congress has been a miserable failure and has been completely whipped by a "lame duck" President with a 30% approval rating. Kudos!

"But Republicans shouldn't pretend this fiasco has somehow turned into another occupation of Japan."

Maybe that's beacuse we dropped two atomic bombs on them first. Compare the civilian casualty rate in Japand to that of Iraq's. Looks like in the future, we should kill a million or so civilians. That'll help bring things to a conclusion.

If the Democrats hadn't been voted into Congress in 2006, we wouldn't have had any surge at all. It would have been "stay the course" and Rummy would still be in charge. So, if there has been any success in the "surge" (as you say, a dubious claim) the Democrats share the credit.