Why the Surge is Working and Why We Are There

[libertyworld]

Why The Surge is Working and Why We Are There:

By Libertyworld

June 5, 2008

Interesting how suddenly silent the greater Aid and Comfort Media went regarding Iraq, wasn't it?

As if reality itself was the enemy.

As if goodness and truth itself...

As if victory, even survival itself was the enemy.

The western left has so completely sold it's soul to defeatism and humiliation of the good guys at the hands of the bad that anything threatening that defeat and humiliation is met with profound aversion.

The Linda Blair Response we see on display so often today.

So completely has it sold it's soul to the dictum of cultural self loathing and the often resultant projected Bush hatred that it has become the most naked of enemy sympathizers, and for the worst of all reasons, that being to humiliate the external object projected from their (inner) most foaming self-hatred, President Bush.

Now I'm no shrink, so this is not my strongest field, but I know the left pretty well, and I know blinding hatred and self-loathing when I see it.

Whether it be that President Bush does not somehow validate a degenerate lifestyle as did the Clintons seem to, or the simple goodness of a regular cowboy that is self evident there, like a mirror to their degeneracy (and it burns!), or from deeper more general sociopathic and/or suicidal compulsions, or the need to belong to some religion equivilant crusade, compounded by the advanced infantilism of perpetual rebellion against any and all adult realities and ever more writhing and torturous denial...

Or a combination thereof or all of the above and more besides or something else altogether...

I can only speak on what little I have known.

Never mind that the very evil that President Bush and America's armed forces (and her allies) are defending us all from sees the western left as laughable weaklings.

Useful tools that would be among the first to go under the rusty knife and heel were the bad guys to really get their way.

So completely has this hatred destroyed all reason that nothing else but the hatred matters anymore.

Iraqi deaths don't matter.

Genocidal tyranny does not matter.

Not under the Butcher Saddam, not after they would cut and run.

Historical perspective does not matter.

Not history itself.

As if not even their own survival matters.

Blind rage.

All consuming hatred.

Suicidal self-loathing.

These are the bitter fruits of the western left.

The vile results of a poisonous ideology.

And the Spawn of The Aid and Comfort Media.

Meanings of words not only do not matter,

...part of the strategy relies, even depends on subverting the language and dialog.

Words like 'Propaganda' have become just another twisted, meaningless stick in the sandbox.

Like neocon, biased, right-wing and war-monger...

Anything that does not goose-step to the rigid dictates of left-wing hatred is now biased, right-wing neo-con propaganda.

As if that is all one needed to mumble to discredit it.

Intellectual bankruptcy of an unprecedented kind.

Subversion most insidious.

The proportion of bad apples to good in our armed forces is minuscule.

But the western left doesn't care about that truth, or any other for that matter.

Though in the denial of truth is the ruin of all authority.

There are significant ways that Iraq is considerably better off today.

They don't care about the Iraqi's.

Though many Iraqi boys long to join the US armed forces and fight for goodness alongside us.

That alone must be painful.

There are many lessons from history that support us taking a stand against the bad guys, and doing so now.

They don't care about history.

Though those who do not are condemned to repeat it.

The bad hate.

And the good have always been hated by the bad.

Because they especially hate the good guys.

They especially hate America.

Christians. Cowboys. Heroes. Liberators. Freedom.

The world they visualize is not at all like America.

And cannot co-exist with her.

Cannot exist in the bright light of day.

Or the light of the lessons of history.

Though the light of day is the way to a brighter day...

The (new paradigm) is:

See no good, hear no good, speak no good.

So go the tenets and the tools of The Aid and Comfort Media.

Lies and hate. Suicidal self-loathing. Rank aversion to adult realities. Failed, retrograde ideologies. The destructive compulsions of the sociopath toward social order.

The need to tear down without, what cannot be reconciled within the disordered world of the deviant.

That most accurately describes the western left today, from all I have seen.

Not just any lies, the very worst kind of lies, those which one convinces oneself of.

Not just any hate, the very worst kind of hate, that which hates oneself and is projected outward.

The kind which most rots ones very soul.

But good tends to triumph, and is doing so even now.

Despite all the subversion and enemy sympathy.

The good guys have the bad guys on the run, imprisoned or dead.

Not entirely, but significantly so.

A big reason such progress has been made lately in Iraq is because of many more regular Iraqis coming forward to help flush out the bad guys.

A big reason that has happened is because we have let them come to really know us, by going into these neighborhoods and being with them.

Toys and candy and hygiene items and playing with the children... and working with the adults and becoming friends all leads to this very thing.

Friends.

Not in all cases. But we don't need all cases.

Once a critical mass is reached, the bad guys can no longer get a foothold.

Because our new friends are flushing them out.

Our new friends have tasted something good, and they like it.

Freedom, relative as it may be, has taken root, and it will not be denied.

Not by murdering cowardly thugs.

Nor by their domestic sympathizers.

Through the best of our best being with them and more a part of their lives, the Iraqis get quite a different picture than that which has always been painted for them by the bad guys and the greater Aid and Comfort Media.

If you think taking the fight, (that which the bad guys have declared upon you, and the Iraqis, and the whole free world) to them on their chosen turf is not 'for the better', then we welcome any historically validated 'better' ideas.

Till then, I consider it better to take a stand, now.

This is why we are there.

We stand for goodness and light.

For the sake of our women and children and homeland.

And for the sake of the free world.

We stand against darkness and tyranny.

Because we are America.

The light and the hope of this world.

The land of the free.

And the home of the brave.

Edited June 7, 2008 by libertyworld

[stevewinn]

it is strange that the left wing media here in the UK have stopped banging the drum of defeatism (for now,) it just proves the point when things are going well, the mass media just dont want to know, but on the other hand when the ****s hitting the fan they cant get enough,

The NEWS isnt the NEWS anymore, the Baghdad broadcasting corporation, (BBC) is a great example, if one of our lads or lasses step out of line in a Iraq or Afghanistan they're reporting it every hour on a loop, telling us how bad our armed forces are, yet when the good news is about, for example the opening of a school, they the BBC and others just dont want to know, in Afghanistan i read somewhere 12 schools have been built/refurbished by our armed forces, why isnt this news reported by the BBC and others, maybe because it doesnt fit the left wing agenda,

[libertyworld]

it is strange that the left wing media here in the UK have stopped banging the drum of defeatism (for now,) it just proves the point when things are going well, the mass media just dont want to know, but on the other hand when the ****s hitting the fan they cant get enough,

The NEWS isnt the NEWS anymore, the Baghdad broadcasting corporation, (BBC) is a great example, if one of our lads or lasses step out of line in a Iraq or Afghanistan they're reporting it every hour on a loop, telling us how bad our armed forces are, yet when the good news is about, for example the opening of a school, they the BBC and others just dont want to know, in Afghanistan i read somewhere 12 schools have been built/refurbished by our armed forces, why isnt this news reported by the BBC and others, maybe because it doesnt fit the left wing agenda,

Strange indeed.

You get this, stevewinn.

Thanks for the advisory regarding the BBC.

And that (left wing) agenda is...

Destruction of order, as reflected from internal disorder?

It's what sociopaths do.

I don't know for certain, but that is sure what it seems like.

[itsnotoutthere]

''For the sake of our women and children and homeland.

And for the sake of the free world.

We stand against darkness and tyranny.

Because we are America.

The light and the hope of this world.

The land of the free.

And the home of the brave.''

Pass the sick bucket. pleeessee.

I think you've watched one too many John Wayne movies.

I accept your point, but please could you make it a bit less cheesy.

Edited June 6, 2008 by itsnotoutthere

[libertyworld]

''For the sake of our women and children and homeland.

And for the sake of the free world.

We stand against darkness and tyranny.

Because we are America.

The light and the hope of this world.

The land of the free.

And the home of the brave.''

Pass the sick bucket. pleeessee.

I think you've watched one too many John Wayne movies.

Like I said...

Profound aversion.

Especially to simple goodness.

[itsnotoutthere]

Like I said...

Profound aversion.

Especially to simple goodness.

lol

[Dusty Digital]

I always think of these when I read your posts lw.

"The Politics of Happiness, Part 5

By Arthur C. Brooks

My last post showed that people with relatively extreme political views tend to be significantly happier than moderates.

I’ll admit I have a harder time relating to political zealotry than I do to political views that simply oppose my own. I have definite opinions — especially on issues like regulation, taxes, and freedom — but I’ve looked at a lot of data in my life and know that it’s simply not realistic to assume that I’m right on everything.

Furthermore, most of my friends and family disagree with me. (Frankly, I’m just grateful to live in a country where none of us gets locked up for voting or saying what we think about politics.)

So why are the zealots so happy? Many readers of my last post suggested that there is a tremendous amount of comfort — even happiness — in total certainty. I think this interpretation is right, and applies to fundamentalists of every stripe.

The troubling characteristic about fundamentalists is that those who don’t agree with them are not just wrong, but maybe even evil. Many religions and creeds encourage the dehumanization of apostates, after all.

Is it hyperbolic to compare political extremists to religious fundamentalists? Read the comments section on any political blog for about ten seconds, and judge for yourself. Better yet, let’s look at some data (you know you want to).

The American National Election Studies employs something called a “feeling thermometer.” This is a public opinion survey tool in which respondents are asked to express their personal feelings about people and issues on a 0 to 100 scale. A freezing score of zero is commonly interpreted as absolute loathing, while 100 means adoration. A score of 50 is “neutral.” A score of 20 or below is unusual, and usually reserved for people and things we despise.

These data show that conservatives like other conservatives much more than liberals do, and vice versa. No surprise there. In 2004, non-extreme conservatives gave themselves a toasty average score of 80, but gave liberals a cooler 42. Non-extreme liberals gave themselves 74 but rated conservatives 41.

But political extremists make these temperature differences look paltry. Those who called themselves extremely liberal in 2004 gave conservatives an average thermometer score of 23, and two-thirds gave conservatives 20 or below. The average score for liberals by extreme conservatives was 27, and half gave liberals 20 or below. To put this into perspective, one 2006 survey found that in 2006, the countries of Cuba and Iran each received average scores of 27 by Americans.

Twenty-two percent of extremists gave people with the opposite viewpoint the absolute lowest score: zero. In one 2002 study, even Saddam Hussein got an average score of 8.

Source: American National Election StudiesThese thermometer scores are ratings of people, not ideas: An ice-cold score is equivalent to saying, “I dislike a certain class of people simply because of the views they hold.” No matter what they say, the data reveal that folks on the extremes harbor real antipathy for the lumpen masses they perceive to be on the other side of the debate.

To review, then: Extremists may be the happiest people on both the left and right. But as a general rule, they don’t like you — unless you agree with them. You might remember this just in case you hear a friend with hard-core political views going on and on about the importance of tolerance.

This post concludes this series on happiness, which can be found here in its entirety"

Freakanomics: Politics of happiness

[libertyworld]

I do see that I made about three distinct references to a lack of 'total certainty' here already.

I have also found conservatives to be generally happier overall than the liberals I have interacted with.

In life, and on the forums.

[Dusty Digital]

I have also found conservatives to be generally happier overall than the liberals I have interacted with.

In life, and on the forums.

The studies support that opinion. There can be varying opinions on the reason for that happiness though:

"The Politics of Happiness, Part 3

By Arthur C. Brooks

In my last post I showed the large happiness differences between religious Americans and secularists, and argued that this is a big part of the reason conservatives are so much happier than liberals. But I also noted that religion and other lifestyle distinctions still only explain about half the gap. In this post, I’ll look at the role of divergent world views to explain the rest.

Before I turn to my own explanations, here are two that I got from people I admire.

Nobel laureate and Princeton professor Daniel Kahneman has pioneered happiness measurement techniques with several of his colleagues (including Princeton star economist Alan Krueger, with whom I shared a fun discussion about happiness on a radio show last week). Mr. Kahneman told me that conservatives think the world is fairer than liberals do, and this makes them happy:

If you believe that people generally get from life what they deserve to get, and if you belong to the majority who are doing fairly well (employed and healthy, for example), you will probably be more satisfied with life than an equally fortunate person who believes that there is much stubborn unfairness in the world.

In other words, that liberal you know who drives a Beemer isn’t very happy about it because he feels guilty.

Psychologist Philip Tetlock is a professor of leadership at Berkeley’s Haas School of Business. He suggests that conservatives seek out simplicity and clear moral values:

Conservatives quite unapologetically prefer leaders who project can-do decisiveness and dissonance — free rhetoric anchored in solid moral principles.

Assuming that it is easier to be happier in a world where right and wrong are crystal clear, this might lead conservatives to be happier than liberals.

In my book I argue that conservatives are more optimistic about the future than liberals are, and believe in each individual’s ability to get ahead on the basis of achievement.

Liberals are more likely to see themselves and others as victims of circumstance and oppression, and doubt whether individuals can climb without governmental help. Consider a bit of evidence.

• The 2005 Maxwell Poll on Civic Engagement and Inequality asked, “How much upward mobility — children doing better than the family they come from — do you think there is in America: a lot, some, or not much?” Among those sampled, 48 percent of below-average income conservatives believed there’s “a lot,” versus 26 percent of upper-income liberals.

• In the same poll, 90 percent of the poorer conservatives agreed that, “While people may begin with different opportunities, hard work and perseverance can usually overcome those disadvantages.” Just 65 percent of richer liberals agreed.

• The liberal-conservative differences on these questions persist when we control not just for income, but also for education, sex, family situation, religion, and race.

You can decide for yourself whether the conservative edge in hope and optimism is warranted or not. You might think that conservatives are in La-La Land, and that people really are stuck, socially and economically. Or you might think that liberals are a bunch of pessimistic grouches. Some hypothesize that the basis of liberal political power is convincing folks that they are victims, and keeping them that way. Others say conservative power actively perpetuates what we academics like to call “false consciousness.”

Politics of happiness 3

[Ins0mniac]

All this talk about the leftist media hiding the positive progress of Iraq is all just right wing paranoia. It's simple. Bad news sells. Good news does not. Not just with Iraq. But with everything. Take a look at a newspaper.

Edited June 6, 2008 by Ins0mniac

[libertyworld]

All this talk about the leftist media hiding the positive progress of Iraq is all just right wing paranoia. It's simple. Bad news sells. Good news does not. Not just with Iraq. But with everything. Take a look at a newspaper.

That's been the case all along.

I'm addressing what has gone beyond that simple given.

As for calling the left on it's aid and comfort, that is not even close to being "just right wing paranoia".

..."Confused? You’re supposed to be. That is the goal of the left—to blur the lines between black and white until every issue becomes an amorphous gray mess that may be manipulated for the convenience of the political moment. Use the word treason to describe treasonous activity and you will be called a right-wing nut; a paranoid conspiracy-theorist; a fanatic; a fascist. The greater the treasonous activity, the greater the character assassination used to defend it. All in the name of free speech."

Edited June 6, 2008 by libertyworld

[Lt_Ripley]

Try some facts --the ONLY reason the surge is 'working' is because a couple of months before the surge even happened Sunnis started getting sick of fighting and resentful of al qeada trying to seize control of resourses. ======== this started before any surge.....

Summary: The Bush administration's new strategy in Iraq has helped reduce violence. But the surge is not linked to any sustainable plan for building a viable Iraqi state and may even have made such an outcome less likely -- by stoking the revanchist fantasies of Sunni tribes and pitting them against the central government. The recent short-term gains have thus come at the expense of the long-term goal of a stable, unitary Iraq.

STEVEN SIMON is Hasib J. Sabbagh Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. From 1994 to 1999, he served on the National Security Council in positions including Senior Director for Transnational Threats.

The Price of the Surge

Steven Simon

From Foreign Affairs, May/June 2008

In January 2007, President George W. Bush announced a new approach to the war in Iraq. At the time, sectarian and insurgent violence appeared to be spiraling out of control, and Democrats in Washington -- newly in control of both houses of Congress -- were demanding that the administration start winding down the war. Bush knew he needed to change course, but he refused to, as he put it, "give up the goal of winning." So rather than acquiesce to calls for withdrawal, he decided to ramp up U.S. efforts. With a "surge" in troops, a new emphasis on counterinsurgency strategy, and new commanders overseeing that strategy, Bush declared, the deteriorating situation could be turned around.

More than a year on, a growing conventional wisdom holds that the surge has paid off handsomely. U.S. casualties are down significantly from their peak in mid-2007, the level of violence in Iraq is lower than at any point since 2005, and Baghdad seems the safest it has been since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime five years ago. Some backers of the surge even argue that the Iraqi civil war is over and that victory on Washington's terms is in sight -- so long as the United States has the will to see its current efforts through to their conclusion.

Unfortunately, such claims misconstrue the causes of the recent fall in violence and, more important, ignore a fatal flaw in the strategy. The surge has changed the situation not by itself but only in conjunction with several other developments: the grim successes of ethnic cleansing, the tactical quiescence of the Shiite militias, and a series of deals between U.S. forces and Sunni tribes that constitute a new bottom-up approach to pacifying Iraq. The problem is that this strategy to reduce violence is not linked to any sustainable plan for building a viable Iraqi state. If anything, it has made such an outcome less likely, by stoking the revanchist fantasies of Sunni Arab tribes and pitting them against the central government and against one another. In other words, the recent short-term gains have come at the expense of the long-term goal of a stable, unitary Iraq.

Despite the current lull in violence, Washington needs to shift from a unilateral bottom-up surge strategy to a policy that promotes, rather than undermines, Iraq's cohesion. That means establishing an effective multilateral process to spur top-down political reconciliation among the major Iraqi factions. And that, in turn, means stating firmly and clearly that most U.S. forces will be withdrawn from Iraq within two or three years. Otherwise, a strategy adopted for near-term advantage by a frustrated administration will only increase the likelihood of long-term debacle.

THE SURGE'S FALSE START

After the February 2006 bombing of the Askariya shrine in Samarra, the White House started to become increasingly concerned that there were too few U.S. troops in Iraq. A network of retired army officers led by Jack Keane, a former vice chief of staff of the U.S. Army, had been pushing from the outside for an increase in forces, and Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) kept up a drumbeat of criticism of what they saw as a lackluster military effort. The November 2006 congressional elections, which handed the House and the Senate to the Democrats, added to the sense that a new strategy was needed. In a December 2006 memo, Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, somewhat gingerly noted that the United States might "need to fill the current four-brigade gap in Baghdad with coalition forces if reliable Iraqi forces are not identified."

On December 13, 2006, Bush met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon to persuade them to allocate more troops to Iraq. It was not an easy sell. U.S. ground forces are not configured to fight such a long war, and the repeated deployment of the same active-duty and Reserve units had taken a toll. The reenlistment rate of young captains, for example, had fallen to an unprecedented low; about half of the West Point classes of 2000 and 2001 had decided against an army career. The pace of unit rotations and the tempo of operations had also taken their toll on equipment, which was wearing out at nine times the normal rate, faster than it could be replaced. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff made clear his concern about the army being stretched too thin. A shortfall of 10,000 company-grade officers meant that the Reserve units would have to rob both people and materiel from other units. Meanwhile, the mounting expense of the war was crowding out the procurement of new combat systems for the navy and the air force, and there was a growing risk that the military might find itself without the capacity to meet other strategic challenges, whether from Afghanistan, Iran, or elsewhere.

cont .............. page 2

.....Bush had observed in his January surge speech that the Sunnis were challenging al Qaeda's presence in Iraq, and a February 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq recommended "deputizing, resourcing, and working more directly with neighborhood watch groups and establishing grievance committees -- to help mend frayed relationships between tribal and religious groups, which have been mobilized into communal warfare over the past three years." A few months later, the president signaled a formal shift in strategy in a speech at the Naval War College: "To evaluate how life is improving for the Iraqis, we cannot look at the country only from the top down. We need to go beyond the Green Zone and look at Iraq from bottom up. This is where political reconciliation matters the most, because it is where ordinary Iraqis are deciding whether to support new Iraq or to sit on the fence, uncertain about the country's future." What the president was proposing was a shift in the U.S. approach to counterinsurgency. Now, the United States would work to exploit a grass-roots anti-al Qaeda movement already under way by taking the pressure off the insurgents who had begun to point their weapons at the jihadists and funneling money to tribal leaders. In theory, this would help dismantle the jihadist infrastructure and create islands of stability that would eventually join up like "oil spots." .....

cont ............... full

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080501faes...-the-surge.html

I think this gentle man knows more on the subject that your right wing hack .

Edited June 6, 2008 by Lt_Ripley

[libertyworld]

Try some facts --the ONLY reason the surge is 'working' is because a couple of months before the surge even happened Sunnis started getting sick of fighting and resentful of al qeada trying to seize control of resourses. ======== this started before any surge.....

I think this gentle man knows more on the subject that your right wing hack .

My what?

Absolutely true to form there rip.

As clueless and defeatist as ever.

..."Confused? You’re supposed to be. That is the goal of the left—to blur the lines between black and white until every issue becomes an amorphous gray mess that may be manipulated for the convenience of the political moment. Use the word treason to describe treasonous activity and you will be called a right-wing nut; a paranoid conspiracy-theorist; a fanatic; a fascist. The greater the treasonous activity, the greater the character assassination used to defend it. All in the name of free speech."

[sear]

"I do see that I made about three distinct references to a lack of 'total certainty' here already.

I have also found conservatives to be generally happier overall than the liberals I have interacted with.

In life, and on the forums." lw

I too have noticed that social conservatives such as Republicans tend not to conceptualize abstractions well, unless the "gray areas" are those they care about.

Republicans pretend to be political conservatives.

They're not. They're social conservatives.

Examples:

They pay eloquent lip service to smaller less intrusive government, except for same sex marriage, women's right of reproductive choice, Drug War, and even flag burning.

"the left wing media here in the UK have stopped banging the drum of defeatism" steve

I don't recall any responsible politician ever advocate "defeat" in Iraq.

Instead:

This Bush administration told us the reasons to invade Iraq was:

a) eliminate Iraq's WMD threat

regime change.

The escalating call for U.S. military troop withdrawal from Iraq gained first poitical foothold after those objectives were accomplished.

So this Bush administration changed our reasons for being there. That's called a "flip-flop" btw. It seems to be based upon a situational assessment which includes shades of gray.

In any case, Bush changed his position to:

"Our goal remains a free & democratic Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself, and is our ally in this War on Terror." U.S. President Bush (younger) 06/12/20

But Bush's flip-flops may not meet McCain's.

McCain went from:

- We may have troops in Iraq for 100 years - to:

- We may begin our withdrawal from Iraq as soon as what would be the beginning of a McCain administration's second term -

How sad that we don't have a real political conservative for President.

[Mekorig]

I love the smell of LW cheese in the morning....

For the white paladins

fighting the very evil commie red pinko bad guys

bringing you demoooooocracy to you

even if you dont want it

with bombs and guns

and if your kids is a colateral casualtiy

be happy, now you have democracy

USA style!

and LW will keep with this cheesy style of writing

until the world ends

posting neocon blogs entrys

[jaylemurph]

For the sake of our women and children and homeland.

And for the sake of the free world.

We stand against darkness and tyranny.

Because we are America.

The light and the hope of this world.

The land of the free.

And the home of the brave.

I take it back LibertyWorld; if this maudlin cliche-riddled dreck is what you come up with solus, you'll do us all a favour by quoting complete townhall.com articles.

--Jaylemurph

[Homer]

Regardless of what the future holds, the surge was a huge success if one understands the fundamental purpose of it.

The surge wasn't undertaken to 'beat the bad guys', but to reduce violence to the point that provides the Iraqi government additional time to bring it's political factions together and push legislation.

The fact that the Iraqi government has failed to accomplished what it wanted to within the time period of reduced violence is the result of the Iraqi government's failure, and not the failure of the surge.

Surge = mission accomplished

Iraqi government =

[sear]

"the surge was a huge success if one understands the fundamental purpose of it." Homer

Define "huge success".

The escalation which they misname a "surge" may have helped reduce U.S. military casualties. In that sense it may be successful.

But the purpose of the U.S. military occupation of Iraq is to stabilize Iraq long enough to enable the Iraqi government to take over for us; to protect itself and its Peoples.

But accomplishing that will require weakening the Iraq government's antagonists. And that means neutralizing the Iraq tribal militias.

But that's the opposite of what we're doing. Our "surge" strategy isn't making them weaker. It's making them stronger.

And thus, those same militias we're now strengthening will face the Iraq government when the U.S. draws down its forces.

So even if the "surge" appears, by quantification of U.S. body count, to be a tactical "success", it may prove to be a strategic blunder.

Realistically, if the militias didn't think it was in their own best interest to accept our bribes, they wouldn't.

They're not slitting their own throats. They're biding their time.

[Homer]

Define "huge success".

I defined it in the very next sentence.

The escalation which they misname a "surge" may have helped reduce U.S. military casualties. In that sense it may be successful.

That's what I mean

[Homer]

But the purpose of the U.S. military occupation of Iraq is to stabilize Iraq long enough to enable the Iraqi government to take over for us; to protect itself and its Peoples.

But accomplishing that will require weakening the Iraq government's antagonists. And that means neutralizing the Iraq tribal militias.

But that's the opposite of what we're doing. Our "surge" strategy isn't making them weaker. It's making them stronger.

And thus, those same militias we're now strengthening will face the Iraq government when the U.S. draws down its forces.

So even if the "surge" appears, by quantification of U.S. body count, to be a tactical "success", it may prove to be a strategic blunder.

Realistically, if the militias didn't think it was in their own best interest to accept our bribes, they wouldn't.

They're not slitting their own throats. They're biding their time.

We assisted the Sunnis in cracking down on terrorists/insurgents, accomplished largely because of the surge. This resulted in a stronger Sunni militia. There was already a relatively strong Shia militia, which there have been a long standing cease fire with. The purpose of the surge is not to disarm these factions(this would most likely increase tension/violence), but to reduce violence so the Iraqi government can come together to work out solutions for these militias(among many other things)

[libertyworld]

I love the smell of LW cheese in the morning....

For the white paladins

fighting the very evil commie red pinko bad guys

bringing you demoooooocracy to you

even if you dont want it

with bombs and guns

and if your kids is a colateral casualtiy

be happy, now you have democracy

USA style!

and LW will keep with this cheesy style of writing

until the world ends

posting neocon blogs entrys

If that is the extent of your understanding of these world affairs, you are exactly the kind of useful tool I spoke of.

Your impudent mocking and disrespect...

Your striking innocence of the most basic realities here...

Even your use of the now meaningless 'neocon'.

Everything about your post validates what I wrote about.

Thank-you.

[sear]

"I defined it in the very next sentence." Homer

That's rather more a mission statement than a definition.

"The purpose of the surge is not to disarm these factions(this would most likely increase tension/violence), but to reduce violence so the Iraqi government can come together to work out solutions for these militias(among many other things)" Homer

Indeed.

And when our short term means are precisely counter to our longer range goals; that's clear cut and alarming evidence that we've got a problem.

And that problem is just one more this Bush administration is foolishly overlooking.

This U.S. military occupation of Iraq has been bungled, literally from day one.

[libertyworld]

I take it back LibertyWorld; if this maudlin cliche-riddled dreck is what you come up with solus, you'll do us all a favour by quoting complete townhall.com articles.

--Jaylemurph

The more insolent and insubstantial your posts, the more you prove me accurate.

[keithisco]

I love the smell of LW cheese in the morning....

For the white paladins

fighting the very evil commie red pinko bad guys

bringing you demoooooocracy to you

even if you dont want it

with bombs and guns

and if your kids is a colateral casualtiy

be happy, now you have democracy

USA style!

and LW will keep with this cheesy style of writing

until the world ends

posting neocon blogs entrys

Excellent Mekorig!!!

[Homer]

Indeed.

And when our short term means are precisely counter to our longer range goals; that's clear cut and alarming evidence that we've got a problem.

And that problem is just one more this Bush administration is foolishly overlooking.

This U.S. military occupation of Iraq has been bungled, literally from day one.

Agreed.

For the record, my description about the surge and it's success(apparent success?) is how I interpret what the specific purpose of the surge is. It may not be accurate, but it's the way I see it.

Also for the record, I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the surge or the war. I'm only stating the additional troops(surge) reduced violence for a specified period of time, and that was it's only purpose. If that truly was it's only purpose, than I'm right(success). If that was only part of it's mission, than I'm wrong(partial success/failed).

Either way, I agree with you that this whole thing has been bungled from the start.