New Poll: The Surge

In my opinion, the surge is not working. According to the Brookings Institution, this is the bloodiest summer yet for Americans in Iraq:

June-July-August 2003: 113 Americans killed
June-July-August 2004: 162 Americans killed
June-July-August 2005: 217 Americans killed
June-July-August 2006: 169 Americans killed
June-July-August 2007: 229 Americans killed so far

Source: http://www3.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf

If that’s progress, you don’t know the definition of the word.

I’m not sure what increased enemy killed numbers prove. I mean, if that’s progress then what’s your goal? When would we have killed enough to go home?

But you’re right, part of the problem is the Iraqi government, sure. However, that doesn’t make our occupation any less deadly or Bush’s strategy any less failed.

Well , I mean really if people are going to make our dead an issue, with all fairness it must be shown to serve a purpose or not.

The surge has killed and or imprisoned 10,000 insurgents sinced Jan 2007.
This is a dramatic rise in scale in the last six months from the numbers I quoted above. Better troop support has brought down the ratio of deaths for our guys against the deaths for the enemy. We are loosing less and they are loosing more.
Now I dont know about anyone else, but when more bad guys are out of the way , its easier to achieve the numerous goals needed to achieve an Iraq that can wipe its own ass so we can leave, or at least move on to rebuilding the infrastructure. Sadly enough , as many times as I’ve heard the left say we are there for the oil. Its actually the Iraqis that are fighting over it which is slowing down the process
Unfortunatly we are not getting deserved cooperation from their goverment. On another post earlier I mentioned I have little respect for the U.N , but the sooner they can apply the aid they were talking about 2 weeks ago the better.
Because quite frankly I see the surge as the real last good military effort we are going to give the Iraqis.
And I think they know it. With that I believe this is also in the minds of the Iraqi people, which is why they are finally starting to help our boys , because they know that if we leave before its stable enough. They are going to be stuck with some pretty crappy choices.

I guess I don’t see the increased death toll on the “enemy” side as a sign of progress. It’s hard to see more death as progress.

Though I agree with you on your last comment. This is the last push the Iraqis are going to get from us. With any luck, we’ll be gone in a year or so.

J-Ro said;

“I guess I don’t see the increased death toll on the “enemy” side as a sign of progress.”

In my opinion that is really a silly attitude and way to fight a war, when the enemy is trying to kill us.

If your definition of the end of a war is when all the enemy is dead, then god bless you. But that feels a bit barbaric to me, especially seeing as the Iraq “war” was declared over 3 years ago…

I honestly can’t tell. As far as the “surge” itself goes, that probably hasn’t done much good. But I have heard reasonable voices saying recently that our military has been learning from their mistakes in Iraq, and maybe changing strategy on more micro levels in ways that do constitute some kind of progress. Does that make progress toward “victory”? I don’t think so, because no one has yet defined what victory will be in Iraq. If victory means we only leave once some kind of fantasy peaceful paradise democratic Iraq rises from the ashes, then I think victory won’t come for a long time. If victory means stabilizing the region and transfering power to some kind of international peacekeeping force, then maybe we can “win” - or at least resolve - the situation.

The mission at hand was declared over, lets not dig up things that are of no consequence to the reality of today.
If you kill the guy shooting to kill you , you.ve won.
And yes that is how wars are won ,by defeating the enemy. In this case he must die, or be captured.
If all the enemy is trying to kill me I will kill all the enemy.
I’ll go as far to say , its not you I would want to be in a fox hole with.

Oh come on Micky, don’t be ridiculous. J’s not saying you don’t shoot back. Plus, with all the great communicatin’ you two do here at The Seminal, I’m sure you and J would make a crackerjack foxhole duo.

He can be the decoy

He better pray the pentagon dont drop the love bomb

Yuk YUk

Anyway, I think the surge is working.
So if you look at your poll, it’s 1 to 1
I’ll bet I know who the other 1 is.
Democracy at work.

This is interesting:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/08/21/fallujah/index_np.html?so urce=rss

I realize this thread was mostly intended for the poll on the surge. But its really hard not to go in to the war on a lot of threads.
I of course have a different outlook than you guys.
My idea of success in Iraq is just for them to get their shit together. Enough to a point where they can deal with any outside interests that are unwanted on their own, or at least with us just hanging around in the background.
I read the link ish supplied, and I’ve read a lot and heard a lot of good stories that are even more up to date.
Iraq is still a fucking pit. But not as bad as it was 6 months ago. And the surge no doubt has had a good effect. I mean how could it not ?
Anytime you add a few more guys with the same goal it just increases the odds to their favor. This has happened and things have mellowed a little. And notice I said ” a little “.
The ratio of kills or captures next our guys surviving has come up.
But I still have sad feeling inside of me as much as see some progress,I think the surge will be in vain.
We can only prop the Iraqis up for so long. I want to be able to say;”You know what ? They dont care so fuckem ”
On the other hand I am positive that if we leave before anything short of them having a decent military 3000 + of our guys will of died for nothing.
I want success, but the more the Iraqi govt. keeps picking its nose, the closer I get to sitting on the fence.

I think the surge is working as well.

What’s interesting is how numbers can be manipulated. one thing I learned in my statistics classes was how to make stats tell people whatever they want to hear.

Can you judge the condition of the war by the number of military deaths? Perhaps, but not when you don’t take into consideration the rest of the numbers.

Personally, I can’t quite figure out how the dems judge success here. Will they hold out on calling success until everybody’s out planting happy little flowers in their little Iraqi yards and everybody’s holding hands and singing kumbi-fucking-ya? it just doesn’t make sense to me.

If everyone on this thread put down what they vision success to look like it might open up a hornets nest, but it would be interesting to see.

Who want’s to go first ?

Nobody’s defined success is what I keep saying. I think the American public defines success in terms of US military deaths because that’s one of the few concrete metrics we have. And the administration doesn’t help much - vague assertions that “things are getting better” don’t really comfort people. Things like the Salon article on Fallujah may count as successes in my mind - I guess my criteria for success is stability, which doesn’t seem to have been achieved in many places.

I also think blaming the Iraqi government for failures in Iraq is rather unfair - after all, they are a government that was created and is propped up by us.

I think the surge is showing some affect on the ground in Iraq - statistically.

Despite this I still had to throw two-scoops of -No- at the poll, because I don’t see the statistical changes as indicative of any progress.

The Iraq war is a quagmire. There is no way out by which America could substantively or meaningfully “win.” It’s my opinion that whether we remain for the next two years or the next twenty, it will make no difference but to prolong the Iraqi citizen’s daily misery of life under military occupation within a war zone.

We can turn over every bed in Iraq looking for weapons and “insurgents,” and it won’t change a thing. We can kill thousands of “terrrrrists” per day and they will just keep coming. Because the men our soldiers fight in the streets are the young and the pissed; who have lost loved ones to the ongoing war; who have lost liberty to our seemingly unending occupation; and who have lost hope of any future for themselves but dirt-farming and bullet-dodging the rest of their live-long days. So long as we fight in their streets, the ranks of these will never be depleted. For each man we kill, his brother and his son will take up arms against us in his place.

So whenever we finally leave, be it in 2008 or 2020, the old men who rally and lead these guerilla forces will get what they want. Once American might is out of the way they will march on Baghdad and they will seize control of the government and it’s militaries - and lets not forget: her oil fields.

And what a glorious day THAT will be. When the enemy we have viciously fought for over half a decade finally lays it’s hands upon the oil reserves of Iraq.

I’m sure they’ll be more than happy to share with the men who bled their streets red with the blood of their friends and family.

I was only interested in a detailed individual vision from each of us. Since there are two reps from each party here.
I wasnt looking for wrong, right blame, or antone elses persption. Sorry, I should been alttle more descript.

I was even considering asking J-ro to go first and holding back everyone elses post intill all 4 were in.

Just a little experiment of sorts.

Success should be based on our Iraq’s ability to maintain at least its current condition if we were to withdraw. in other word, if we pulled out of Iraq today, would it degrade or would it at least be able to maintain its present condition? It’s hard to judge success or progress on the level that they are trying to do it right now. I mean, how do you judge success based on troop deaths? Look at D-Day… Would you judge the success of Normandy based on the number of troop deaths there? It’s all part of a bigger picture.

I think functional success would be for Iraq to first have a miltary that could fend off whats going on right now. With us in the background in case AlQueda and or Iran get stupid. This would allow the parliament to structure a goverment that could apply a system that would keep the three parties { fuck the baathist loose ends} in civil co-operation with each other { oil wealth distribution } This would enable them to complete the picture by bringing the infrastructure up to grade.
I can safely say that we will never be able to leave Iraq completly as long as Al Queda is still attempting to make the whole muslim community hate us, and Iran still has the present agenda.

I don’t want to interrupt the presentation of “Success” definitions - please continue - but I have to ask:

Don’t you think it a pretty far-flung pipe-dream that this or any US installed Iraqi military force would be able to repel what it has thus far taken a coallition [emphasis added] of the most technologically advanced militaries in the world to fend off?

I mean, I’ve watched video feeds of laser guided missiles fired into the unexpecting crowds of “the enemy” (maybe) which were being painted by low earth orbit satellites… And we can’t defeat these guys!? Somehow a cobbled together force of individuals who have no great pride or faith in this newly installed Iraqi government is expected to stand and die in it’s defense? Against this enemy?

Further, maintaining the status quo of on-the-ground conditions in Iraq doesn’t seem a very worthwhile aim. If it could be done, the Iragi civilianry would look forward to the same barrage of bombings, shellings, and gunfire in the streets; The corners of every city occupied by men wearing flack jackets with sub-machine guns dangling under arm, asking for documentation and proof of destination whenever they pass…

Is dooming Iraq to the same lifestyles of Nazi era Germany and Soviet Russia really what was meant when our commander-in-chief led us in, guns-a-blazing shouting, “We will bring you freedom?”

Well , you know Roy…

At least I have a goal.
I really hate cliche`s, but at least if I aim for the stars, I might hit the moon.
Aiming and hitting are two different things.

I find it ironic that you call anything “far flung”

You’re not helping.

Roy said;
“Is dooming Iraq to the same lifestyles of Nazi era Germany and Soviet Russia really what was meant when our commander-in-chief led us in, guns-a-blazing shouting, “We will bring you freedom?”

I’m really tired of the arguement that anything happening in Iraq resembles ” Nazi era Germany”

My Grandmother was beaten, tattoed and thrown in a concentration camp by Nazis for hiding Americans in her closet. My mother was 12 at the time and was raped by Nazi’s at the same time.
Both of them have givin me very vivid details of what life was like in that place and time. And I think it’s really careless and foolish of you to suggest thst our forces would operate in that maneer or that the conditions there resemble anything of the sort.
Quit while you’re ahead.

If any form of life in Iraq came close Nazi-ism it was the rule of Saddam.

I don’t run this blog, and I guess its my fault for taking the liberty to try and have little fun and lighten up. You might want to try this once in a while.I have lost my temper on this blog before and apologized for it, but if you persist with this kind of shit, I will not apologize next time.

Nazi-era Germany, was a reference to the idea of a society wherein the citizens are pointed and led from street to street by military checkpoints; might be killed by random fire; might be killed for their documents; might be killed for their socio-political alignments. There’s nothing wrong with the comparison simply because it isn’t absolute. There are no absolute comparisons - in case you were wondering. And I used it because when I think of men with sub-machine guns telling people where they can and cannot go, I think of Nazism’s erstwhile German occupation.

I’d also like to say that I lose ever more respect for you with each ever more hateful “you disagree so fuck you asshole” tone. Settle your nerves and try joining me for a peaceful debate. It’s the fact that American’s tend to fly off the handle when confronted with a contrary viewpoint that keeps me from having religieous or political conversations outside of my mostly-liberal group of friends. If you could be civil long enough to get them out maybe I could understand your positions and why you hold them. Hell, we might even come up with solutions neither of us had yet considered. I mean, that’s the point of discussion, right?!

[Hrumph]

So anyway… When you said I wasn’t helping you’re not completely unfounded. To this point I’ve only addressed the situation as it is and as it would be according to America’s present course of actions. I’ve put forward no hopeful solutions, instead opting to address the ideas and concerns of the threads contributors directly; a grace I have yet to see in return, I might add.

Nonetheless, until you choose to defend your positions I must list them among the many casualties of this war. Therefore, based on the conclusions I’ve already put forward, let’s talk solutions.

This war’s victory, in my opinion, can only be claimed upon two vital mediums. First, the oil properties under Iraqi control must be safely held and available - according to the tenants of the (shamefully) capitalist world market - to the petroleum consortiums which distribute them internationally.

Secondly, the average Iraqi citizen must be able to travel from home to church with the reasonable expectation that he or she will not be killed in the process. I see these as the low-bar standard and truly no greater than a return to the state of Iraq while under Saddam’s authority.

With these goals in mind I have one painless and simple solution that no one wants to hear and no one will ever realistically consider. Admit defeat.

We are presented with a war that can continue forever. It’s longevity is guaranteed because neither force will ever be fully depleted of the resources necessary to continue. Therefore we are engaged in a battle by which both sides aim to deplete the oppositions will to fight; as this is the only resource that can be meaningfully attacked.

It is a foregone conclusion that America’s will to continue this war shall evaporate long before our enemy. As I have said, the enemy’s ranks are filled with righteously angry youth. I assure you this world will no more be rid of hot-tempered twenty-somethings willing to kill for their beliefs than it will ever be rid of the poor and disenfranchised.

So we are destined to exit Iraq. And if my conclusions about the capabilities of an American installed Iraqi military are correct, than when we withdraw neither of my personal goals of resource stability or peace in the streets are likely to emerge there.

With this in mind, the only course of action I see which has a chance of bringing about a relatively stable Iraq is to admit our defeat and open dialogue with our enemies.

If we can establish diplomatic negotiations as part of an overall exit strategy we may still be able to have a hand in shaping the future government that is inevitably drawn upon Iraq.

By making ourselves the middlemen during the exchange of power we can subtly manipulate the structure of the government to come. It will not be a great and noble democracy, nor a government of the people, by the people… but it will be better than the open civil warfare that will come in the absence of a mediated transition.

Once the powers that control the insurgency must occupy a role of legitimate governance, the world can place them under U.N. sanctions to guarantee the free flow of oil resources. Further, if this new incarnation of Iraq becomes a real problem child - we can at last fight them outright. They will be a military power and we can defeat a military power in a way that we have proven ourselves incapable of when pitted against guerilla forces.

If you cannot tolerate an American concession of defeat than look at it as a strategic retreat. By sacrificing the high ground we draw the enemy into the open field of the world stage. If they put in place a legitimate government that allows the people some semblance of a peaceful life while profiting by selling the oil the world demands, then we have won!

If they establish a government that threatens the world by withholding it’s natural resources, while persecuting certain members of it’s civilianry for religious or political affiliation - then at least we have lured them out of the caves making victory over them possible.

I’ll admit it’s not a great plan and there are a lot of holes to address. But it contains hope. Hope for something better than turning Iraq into a more violent version of 1950’s East Berlin.

At the root of this concept is diplomacy and negotiation. Given everything I’ve said, it couldn’t hurt for the American government to back off the “we don’t negotiate” rhetoric and have a sit down with whoever will claim authority over some portion of the Iraq insurgency. Without it, we’re out of options - at least with my form of victory in mind.

Of course, if you don’t give a shit for the Iraqi people we could always just hunker down, declare Iraq officially annexed, and settle in for endless aggressions. That’ll keep your oil flowing. Plus we’ll get to hear Anderson Cooper use the term, “Empirical America.” That’d be neat!

Roy said;
‘Nazi-era Germany, was a reference to the idea of a society wherein the citizens are pointed and led from street to street by military checkpoints; might be killed by random fire; might be killed for their documents; might be killed for their socio-political alignments.’

“A REFERENCE TO THE IDEA” { really bad choice}
Thats not the only reasons why the Nazis killed millions.
You are playing the wrong game with the wrong fellow.
My father was Jewish, he adopted me and married my Danish mother.I have a German last name only because it was handed to my fathers mother.And I will not mention that name especially around you because it’s a very rare name, and it would make it too easy for you to get near my family Your comparing or refering one to the other shows your arrogance in that you will justify anything to make point.
I am way more aware of Nazi Germany than you will ever be.

Roy said;
“I’d also like to say that I lose ever more respect for you with each ever more hateful “you disagree so fuck you asshole” tone.”

You finally got it right, and you are the last person on earth I want respect from.

I’ve only been visiting The Seminal for a little while now but I sincerely hope that you don’t run around book-ending every topical discussion with this kind of flagrantly nonsensical, mouth-foaming contempt, micky.

Seriously, I can get this kind of spiteful, assumption based - pick apart the words, ignore the message - antagony anywhere on the internet. Given the quality and thoughtfulness of the daily blogs here I was hoping for more from this community.

I don’t know if you think I’m some kind of anti-semite or what but your attitude and demeanor so far are unjustified and indefensible.

I don’t know what more to say except that you are slowly proving my original proposal of the state of the modern American populace.

Some people I just dont care for,to the point where they dont even deserve an explanation why. But Like some people, I’m not a complete asshole. So you’ll get this much out of me and then I’m going outside to enjoy my country.
On the other thread I choose bot to debate you due your irrationality as was noted by a couple others, so I came here to this thread and was trying to have a lighter time.
I dont run this blog , but I put up an idea that everyone seemed to embrace. And we were doing just that.
Post #22 should actually be in front of your post #21.

You quickly marched over to this thread and said; “I dont want to interupt but”

Well you did interupy with your usual overdiagnosed, anal, and gloomy approach to mostly everything.

And then you proceed in the same manner after my post #24 with the same crap. All I asked these guys was a simple question and everyone was giving quite simple answers . And then you had to come along and drag everything down into the dump with you.

To answer the original question (and to get off the silly arguments), there will be no success in Iraq. Iraq may succeed or fail, by their own measure, but it is presumptive for anyone in the US to decide what success or failure for Iraqis will look like. It’s not our country. And second, no matter what the US does or doesn’t do, Iraq will succeed or fail how it will. We have no influence over that situation. As for *our* success in Iraq, it is impossible. We will (already have) lose this war. I know it sucks to lose, but it was doomed to fail from the start.

Since its our men and women dying for their country I think we have every right to presume what success looks like , especially since the Iraqis cant seem to govern on there own right now. We are trying our best to give them an opportunity and they dont seem to be taking it seriously. It is their coutry as J-ro said, so they should treat it accordingly , instead of taking vacations.
To say that we have no influence over Iraq’s success or failure is not giving any of our efforts now or in the past any credit at all. Just our being there now is influence enough. Ousting Saddam was a great influence. Lets make sure that we keep the distinction between the Iraqi parliament and the people.
Are we saying the only thing that will influence their failure or success will be if we pull out and let them get slaughterd?
I dont think its fair to say we lost anything when you look back at the decades of tyranny ,murder and ethnic cleansing done by Saddam. Or to the fact that most of capitol hill { Even Hillary rolled over today}agrees the surge has had a positive effect.
Any way, I gave my vision up above as to what I thought success would look like , and see it as obtainable.
We won our part of the war, now we must put the place back together so the Iraqis can win their war.

As for *our* success in Iraq, it is impossible. We will (already have) lose this war. I know it sucks to lose, but it was doomed to fail from the start.

Well hell, that’s an awfully optimistic way to look at things. Care to explain why it is you see things that way? After all, under the terms you set forth, there can not ever be a war that is “won” short of a war fought on our own soil.

On the other hand, I am starting to think that we should really give the world stage the finger and reinstate imperialism. THEN we could define success in Iraq because it would be our own territory. It would be easy. Simply declare that they are unfit to rule and dissolve all aspects of the Iraqi government. Then at least we could declare a win or lose situation based on our ability to win or lose on our own territory.

I say there will be no success because we’re not really fighting a war. In every other conflict, the end of the war was not when we wiped out the enemy, or when we set up a functioning government. The end of the war was when we signed a peace treaty. Who are we going to sign that treaty with? Who’s going to surrender to whom? Calling this thing a war means that this war will have no end. As such, we’ll lose, because America will not fight a neverending war.

It’s ok though. We can lose. We lost in Vietnam and we’re about to lose again. My ego isn’t that big. I’m ok with losing. I’m over it.

Who and what dictates that a war is over only if a treaty is signed ?
The North Korean war actually never ended in that case.

We didnt lose in Vietnam.
April 30, 1975
North Vietnamese forces take over Saigon; South Vietnam surrenders to North Vietnam, ending the war and reunifying the country under communist control, forming the Independent Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Washington extends embargo to all of Vietnam.

Thousands of south vietnamese were slaughterd, they are the ones who ultimatly lost. And I guess its O.K. to be O.K. with the same type of loss in Iraq ?

Micky, it’s kind of a moot point. History means very little to most of the liberals out there. I mean, ok, I hate to generalize and all, but it seems that history is either completely misconstrued or taken out of context or just completely ignored all together by the left these days.

We all know what will happen. It’s happened before, and this time it stands to be much much worse… Yet, here we are, fighting the same old tired argument about how to best pull out, admit defeat and let their country burn to the ground while we wonder what the hell just happened.

Just wait until jetliners piloted by angry Iraqis start crashing into buildings… I mean, you don’t think that by us fucking them over and pulling out and handing them over to the assholes over there that we won’t be creating a whole new breed of angry terrorists, do you? Hahaha

arclightzero, that was a stupid generalization. I advise you to watch it on this site. Any reading of my work will show you that I study history seriously.

Not to throw more fuel to the fire, but these guys know their Vietnam history…

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/24/opinion/24fri1.html?th&emc=th

We figured this thing out today at work. Forget oil - I honestly couldn’t care less. Victory is leaving Iraq in a state that doesn’t end in a bloody civil war.

So, you give Shi’ites the whole judiciary. You give Sunnis the whole legislative branch. You give Kurds the presidency.

This way, everyone has a seat of power with the authority to veto each others ideas. Since none of them will ever agree on anything, the government becomes completely ineffectual, therein leaving the countries populace to enjoy a state of perfect, harmonious, unregulated bliss.

Okay,

I’ve taken a moral inventory, and I’ll apologize for whatever shortages I was guilty of yesterday and take another approach to this.

Roy said;
“Forget oil - I honestly couldn’t care less. Victory is leaving Iraq in a state that doesn’t end in a bloody civil war.”

Unfortunaly what is not being realized by most of the general public is that it is the oil that comes into the big picture with all the players in the insurgency.
Revenues from this oil in the wrong hands would undeniably be a huge problem. Remember, North Korea is strapped for cash.

Should any one of them succeed, that wiil be the first thing they go after.
I will agree that not having mass murder will be a victory on one front.

Roy said;
“So, you give Shi’ites the whole judiciary. You give Sunnis the whole legislative branch. You give Kurds the presidency.”

Although this statement above sounds a little synical, it makes one wonder if a three state solution with an oil sharing treaty could ” maybe ” be a possibility.