• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

The Surge Is Working In Iraq

Mike

Well-known member
Arguments accepted. :lol:

************************************

Qaeda defeated in Baghdad: Iraqi PM

Feb 15 01:25 PM US/Eastern

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki proclaimed on Friday that Al-Qaeda had been routed in Baghdad thanks to a security plan launched a year ago, and would soon be defeated throughout the country.
"Thank God, we destroyed the cells of Al-Qaeda. They have been chased out of Baghdad and this has opened the way for their defeat throughout Iraq," Maliki said at a ceremony marking the launch on February 14 last year of the Baghdad security plan, known as Operation Fardh al-Qanoon (Imposing Law).

"Today our forces are locked in battle against outlaws in Nineveh and we are chasing them," he added, referring to the northern province where Iraqi officials say Al-Qaeda has regrouped after fleeing Baghdad.

Maliki on January 25 announced a "decisive battle" against Al-Qaeda in Nineveh province, and sent troop and police reinforcements to the provincial capital Mosul, which the US military says is the last urban stronghold of Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The prime minister thanked "all those who helped make the security plan a success and who saved the country from the miserable situation it was in due to Al-Qaeda's violence and terrorism."

To mark the anniversary of the launch of Fardh al-Qanoon, he laid a wreath at the monument to the Unknown Soldier in Baghdad at a ceremony attended by the defence and interior ministers and other Iraqi officials.

The launch of Fardh al-Qanoon coincided with the start of a "surge" of an extra 30,000 US troops in Iraq, which has helped reduce the number of bombings in the capital, while the streets are no longer theatres for violent clashes between insurgents and the security forces.

The decrease in violence is being experienced elsewhere as well, with US and Iraqi officials saying that attacks across the country are down 62 percent since June while the number of Iraqis -- civilians and security force members -- killed in January 2008 was 541 against 2,087 in the same month in 2007.

But recent attacks in Baghdad, including twin blasts in the city centre which targeted a meeting of tribal leaders and killed 19 people, have shown just how fragile the security situation is.
 

fff

Well-known member
The escalation (surge to you) was announced by George W. Bush against the wishes of most every military officer in the Pentegon. His top aide at the time has said 80% of the people who advised Bush, advised against this escalation. Bush announced it as a temporary increase in military strength to give the Iraqi government breathing space, to work out their differences and meet the benchmarks set out by Congress and agreed to by him.

Billions of dollars later, hundreds of lives later, the Iraqi government hasn't done squat to resolve their differences. They've met maybe one benchmark. No, the "surge" isn't working. It won't work. Bush will keep the number of military in Iraq about where it is through his term, continue to run up deficits, and print more money to throw at the slowing economy and people like you will pretend the "surge" was about killing terrorists instead of helping the Iraqi government. If we get a Democratic president next year, he/she will start drawing down our troops and the Iraqis will either get along or kill each other. But, for better or worse, they'll run their own country. The "surge" is simply postponing that inevitable result, whatever it may be.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Here's what you posted in July of 06. It sounds here like you're saying peace in bagdad is impossible. I don't see you mention anything about the political diversion you mention now.

Disagreeable said:
Again? I hope things don't get any more successful in Iraq. :roll: I think we've had about as much success there as our military can stand. (Sarcasam for those who don't recognize it.) Link below; my emphasis.

"President George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki will consider adding more U.S. and Iraqi troops in Baghdad and other ways to counter surging violence when they meet at the White House on Tuesday.
Bush and Maliki will consider new approaches to quelling the bloodshed in and around the capital after Maliki's security plan for the region proved a disastrous failure.
"One of the first challenges, obviously, is to go ahead and find an effective way to secure Baghdad," said White House spokesman Tony Snow.


Everybody's a failure exept the Bush Bunch. It's bound to be someone else's fault, this bunch won't take responsibility for anything bad that happens on their watch.

"The situation in Baghdad is one that if there starts to be improvement in that city, that will have positive reverberations throughout the country," one official said."

Now why would anyone believe this guy? They haven't been right about anything in this war yet. First is was topple Saddam and the people would welcome us with open arms. Then it was get a government, then a Constitution, then an elected government, now this is what's needed to bring peace to the country. :roll:

More at the link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060724/ts_nm/bush_iraq_dc_2
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Here's another article from you in 06. Seems clear to me that they were talking about civil war and a military action to offset it. The surge worked ff. Quit lying about what we thought in the past.



When Americans think of civil war, they mostly think of the one that occurred here in 1861-65. Southern states seeking to become independent from the federal union, fought government troops in bloody battles, mostly in the South. More than 200,000 troops on both sides were killed in action and another 400,000 died from diseases, starvation and other causes.

What's happening in Iraq has not quite reached that level of combat or casualties. Most of those dying are civilians, not military. About 14,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in the first six months of this year. Around 2,600 U.S. troops have died in Iraq since the war began.

But whether we call the hostilities in Iraq a civil war, or whether we refer to them as ongoing violence, the fact remains that nearly 3 1/2 years after the fall of Saddam Hussein, things are not going well there.

It was all too evident last Tuesday when Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki visited with President Bush at the White House and met with reporters. Bush, proclaiming conditions in the Iraqi capital "terrible," announced a plan to shift more U.S. troops to Baghdad from other points in the country to beef up Iraqi forces beset by a surge of attacks in and around the city.

"Our strategy is to remain on the offense, including in Baghdad," Bush said.

Then, trying to put a more positive face on the obvious setback, he added, "We still face challenges in Baghdad. Yet, we see progress elsewhere in Iraq."

But with this latest shift in strategy, it would seem clear that the Pentagon might have to table plans to start bringing some troops home by the end of the year, civil war or no civil war."[/i]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/benedetto/2006-07-28-benedetto_x.htm?csp=34[/quote]
 

Mike

Well-known member
Diary shows surge working

Democrat Nancy Pelosi claims the surge is "a failure." That would be news to terrorists of al-Qaida in Iraq -AQI - on the receiving end of the surge. American leaders in Iraq are increasingly describing AQI as "on the run." Saturday, Coalition spokesmen released a captured diary written by an al-Qaida "emir" (leader), which gives a vivid description of an enemy in disarray.

The diary of "Abu Tariq" was found in November by U.S. soldiers patrolling near Balad, north of Baghdad. After being exploited (i.e. translated and analyzed), the document proved to be highly illuminating. (See the full translation at www.defenselink.com.)



As the emir of five AQI "Battalions," Abu Tariq reveals a network falling apart around him as the Sunni "Awakening" gathers steam and tribes turn against al-Qaida, Coalition forces hunt down his key men, while others defect or withhold their support. Below are some telling excerpts:

His forces have clearly decreased dramatically - "There were 600 fighters in our sector before the tribes changed course ... Many of our fighters quit, and some of them joined the deserters ... Things started getting worse ever since, and ... the number of fighters dropped to 20 or less."
Old supporters are reluctant now - "We gave him $28,000 to get the (truck) back but he did not return it yet. He refuses to give us any of it lately ... therefore we have to keep trying with him to get our weapons and ammunition back ... especially since the Awakening groups started opposing us."

He threatens those who have turned - "Later I will mention the names of the traitors so that they may be punished when time comes. ... [they are] the cancer that grew in the body of the jihad movement, therefore we should have no mercy on them"

Then he catalogs the disruptions that his units have suffered as a result of the surge, the Petreaus counterinsurgency strategies, and the organizing of new Concerned Local Citizen groups as part of the Awakening.

"Battalion of Laylat al-Qadr Martyrs: The number of fighters in this Battalion were 200. All of them were very well-equipped with weapons and 37 vehicles, and they did a lot of good activities against the invader and its followers ... there are few left who are actually fighting and some were killed and some arrested, but the majority betrayed us and joined the Awakening ... The number of fighters is now only ten."

"Battalion of Abu-Haydar al-Ansari: There were 300 fighters ... since their Emir deserted us, (they) dropped down to 16, and then to two; one was arrested and the second injured."

"Battalion of Hudhayfah Ibin al-Yaman: For the present time their activities are frozen."

"Battalion of al-Ahwal: Most of its members are scoundrels, sectarians, non-believers."

"Battalion of Muhammad Bin Muslimah: The leader was killed by the traitors ... with help of the invaders' helicopters, which [destroyed] some of our vehicles and weapons ... (he) became an officer with the Awakening group, plus others who ran away with their weapons."

Air Defense Section: One person is left in this department who is still working with us.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
diary of dishonest

Disagreeable said:
kolanuraven said:
I've always said that the troops should surround the borders of Iraq. I mean let NO ONE in or out for that fact. I mean seal'er up shut!

Let'em fight it out....and THEN and only THEN, when the dust has settled, talk with whomever is left standing!!!

Keep our folks out of the way and let nature takes it's course....survival of the fittest!! A ture Darwin style approach !!!

If the Bush Bunch had sent enough troops to start with to seal the borders and secure weapons dumps, things might be different now. But they didn't. One more time: they ignored the advice of professional soldiers and went in light, undermanned, no armored vehicles. And we're paying the price three years later. The Iraqi people are paying an even higher price.
 

fff

Well-known member
None of your responses address the fact that Bush announced the escalation as a short term move to allow the Iraqi government to get their act together. We've spent billions of $$, US soldiers have died and has the Iraqi government got its act together? No. As they say, "The operation was successful, but the patient died".

So spin and spin. Continue to live in your fantasy world along with Bush, but most people know the reasons put forth for the escalation and that it's another failure of George W. Bush's administration.
 

fff

Well-known member
If, as expected, George W. Bush next week announces his intention to "surge" some 20,000 additional US troops to Iraq to pacify Baghdad and Sunni-dominated Anbar province, he may find himself in a tougher fight than he expected even a week ago.

Not only are the new Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress lining up in opposition, but a growing number of Republican lawmakers – even including staunch Bush loyalists – are voicing serious reservations about the idea.

"Baghdad needs reconciliation between Shi'ites and Sunnis," Republican Sen. Norm Coleman, who just returned from Iraq and faces re-election in 2008, told the Los Angeles Times this week. "It doesn't need more Americans in the crosshairs."

Even ret. Lt. Col. Ollie North, a far-right talk-show host who gained fame as the White House coordinator of what became the Iran-Contra affair 20 years ago, reported that recent interviews with officers and soldiers in Iraq persuaded him that adding more troops to the 140,000 already deployed there would be a mistake.

Indeed, aside from Bush himself, the only forces that appear enthusiastic about what the White House calls a "surge" – and what critics call an "escalation" – are neoconservatives, who led the drive to invade Iraq, and two of their dwindling number of Congressional supporters, Republican Sen. John McCain and Democratic Sen. Joseph Lieberman, who also just returned from Iraq.

"McCain and Lieberman talked to many of the same officers and senior NCOs [non-commissioned officers] I covered for FOX News during my most recent trip to Iraq," North asserted in his syndicated column Friday.

"Not one of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Guardsmen or Marines I interviewed told me that they wanted more US boots on the ground. In fact, nearly all expressed just the opposite. 'We don't need more American troops, we need more Iraqi troops' was a common refrain. They are right."

"A 'surge' or 'targeted increase in US troop strength' or whatever the politicians want to call dispatching more combat troops to Iraq isn't the answer. Adding more trainers and helping the Iraqis to help themselves is. Sending more US combat troops is simply sending more targets," North wrote.

As some 200 protesters picketed on the street outside Friday, McCain and Lieberman told an appreciative audience at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI) – which used the occasion to release the latest version of its own "surge" plan, "Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq" – that substantially increasing US troop strength was essential to avoiding a potentially catastrophic defeat.

Even the authors of the AEI plan, however, warned that the number of additional troops which Bush reportedly plans to send to Iraq – as many as five brigades through the spring, or about 20,000 soldiers and Marines – will be inadequate.

"We'd be very uncomfortable with less than (five brigades for Baghdad and two for Anbar)," said Frederick Kagan, who has previously called for adding at least 50,000 troops to gain control of Baghdad alone. "We're really not prepared to compromise on that."

But the White House appears to have calculated for now that 20,000 troops are the most they can get away with, and even that may be too optimistic given its fast deteriorating political position.

According to the latest public opinion polls, nearly three out of four US respondents now say they disapprove of Bush's handling of Iraq, while confidence in his overall leadership has fallen to record lows. Despite having ostentatiously devoted most of the past month devising a new strategy for Iraq, which Bush is expected to formally unveil in a major policy address next week, a CBS poll this week found that the public does not believe Bush has a "clear plan" for dealing with the situation there.

The same poll showed that the war in Iraq is also considered far and away the most important priority that people here want the new Democrat-led Congress to take up, a finding that no doubt encouraged the two Democratic leaders, House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, to announce in a letter to Bush released Friday that they will oppose any increase in US troops in Iraq.

"Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain," wrote the two leaders, citing recent testimony to that effect by senior US military officers, including the outgoing commanders of US forces in Iraq and the Middle East.

"After nearly four years of combat, tens of thousands of US casualties, and over 300 billion dollars, it is time to bring the war to a close. We, therefore strongly encourage you to reject any plans that call for our getting our troops any deeper into Iraq," they added in what a number of political analysts described as a surprisingly strong stand given traditional Democratic fears of being depicted as "weak on defense."

"This is a great statement," said Jim Cason, an analyst at the Friends Committee on National Legislation, an antiwar lobby group. He noted, however, that, short of cutting off funding for the war, Congress has few vehicles for stopping Bush from going ahead with a deployment.

Nonetheless, one vehicle that looms as a likely battleground – probably early next month – is Bush's anticipated request for some 100 billion dollars, in addition to the 75 billion dollars already approved by last year's Republican-led Congress, to fund US military operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan in fiscal 2007.

While no one expects the Democrats to oppose the request as a whole, the critical issue is whether they will attach conditions to the appropriation. Cason said Democrats should at the least impose conditions requiring Bush to adopt key recommendations of the Iraq Study Group (ISG) – the bipartisan, Congressionally-appointed task force headed by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Rep. Lee Hamilton – and set a timetable for withdrawal.

Over the past month, Bush has all but rejected the ISG's most important recommendations, including its call to withdraw virtually all of Washington's combat forces from Iraq within 15 months, condition aid to the Iraqi government on its progress toward achieving national reconciliation, and engage Syria and Iran as part of a regional effort to stabilize Iraq.

But the ISG's recommendations have been largely endorsed by the Democratic leadership and by moderate – and even more-rightwing – Republicans, pointing to the possibility of a relatively strong bipartisan majority in Congress opposed to escalating the war.

"To be successful, the opposition has to include some Republicans, and it's clear that more Republicans are challenging the president's Iraq war strategy," according to Cason, who noted that some Republican aides have reported a substantial rise in antiwar mail from constituents since the Democrats' victory in the November elections.

Aside from constituent pressure, Republican lawmakers are also likely to be impressed by a recent poll of US military personnel by the Military Times that found that only about one in three officers and enlisted servicemembers approve of Bush's handling of the war and that nearly three in four said they believe the armed forces are stretched too thin to be effective.

(Inter Press Service)

http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=10279

From the speech announcing the escalation:


This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings, assassinations, or IED attacks. Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering. Yet over time, we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad's residents. 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. Most of Iraq's Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace -- and reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070110-7.html

In case you're missing it, US troops are still carrying the burden of this war, neighborhoods are becoming more and more segregated, car bombs are still killing civilians....

The surge is a total failure, yet Bush is not going to admit it. He's just going to cover his butt for another year, not caring a bit how many die for his "legacy" and the debt he leaves for another administration and taxpayers to deal with. :mad:
 

Cal

Well-known member
Interesting, "Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki proclaimed on Friday that Al-Qaeda had been routed in Baghdad thanks to a security plan launched a year ago, and would soon be defeated throughout the country", yet Disfff claims that "The surge is a total failure, yet Bush is not going to admit it".....unbelievable.

Good job Mike and Red Robin.
 

Texan

Well-known member
Cal said:
Interesting, "Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki proclaimed on Friday that Al-Qaeda had been routed in Baghdad thanks to a security plan launched a year ago, and would soon be defeated throughout the country", yet Disfff claims that "The surge is a total failure, yet Bush is not going to admit it".....unbelievable.

Good job Mike and Red Robin.
Good post, Cal. It's good to have you back. As you can see, nothing much has changed except for the names.

And you're right about Mike and Red Robin doing a good job. In fact, Mike has been doing such a good job of posting the REAL news, that he's had the liberals squirming pretty good this week. :lol:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Attacks in Baghdad fall 80 percent: Iraq military
Yahoo / AP ^ | February 16, 2008 | Aws Qusay


Posted on 02/16/2008 2:53:31 PM PST by faq


Attacks by insurgents and rival sectarian militias have fallen up to 80 percent in Baghdad and concrete blast walls that divide the capital could soon be removed, a senior Iraqi military official said on Saturday.

Lieutenant-General Abboud Qanbar said the success of a year-long clampdown named "Operation Imposing Law" had reined in the savage violence between majority Shi'ites and minority Sunni Arabs dominant under Saddam Hussein.

"In a time when you could hear nothing but explosions, gunfire and the screams of mothers and fathers and sons, and see bodies that were burned and dismembered, the people of Baghdad were awaiting Operation Imposing Law," Qanbar told reporters.

Qanbar pointed to the number of dead bodies turning up on the capital's streets as an indicator of success.

In the six weeks to the end of 2006, an average of 43 bodies were found dumped in the city each day as fierce sectarian fighting threatened to turn into full-scale civil war.

That figure fell to four a day in 2008, in the period up to February 12, said Qanbar, who heads the Baghdad security operation.

"Various enemy activities" had fallen by between 75 and 80 percent since the security plan was implemented, he said.

To demonstrate how life had improved, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki toured parts of the city on Saturday, visiting Iraqi forces and checkpoints.

"He wanted ... to send a message to the terrorists that security in Baghdad is prevailing now," one official said.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
The proof that the surge is working is in this years presidential election message. Look how little the debate about Iraq has came into play in the election. Compare that to the past.

If the surge was not working it would be the main and only focus in this presidential election.
 

Cal

Well-known member
Texan said:
Cal said:
Interesting, "Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki proclaimed on Friday that Al-Qaeda had been routed in Baghdad thanks to a security plan launched a year ago, and would soon be defeated throughout the country", yet Disfff claims that "The surge is a total failure, yet Bush is not going to admit it".....unbelievable.

Good job Mike and Red Robin.
Good post, Cal. It's good to have you back. As you can see, nothing much has changed except for the names.

And you're right about Mike and Red Robin doing a good job. In fact, Mike has been doing such a good job of posting the REAL news, that he's had the liberals squirming pretty good this week. :lol:
Hey Texan, wonder what all of those f's stand for :wink: . This Misses has been at a convention in TX all week....sure wish I could have tagged along with her and looked you up, but have replacement heifers calving like it's going out of style.
 

Cal

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
The proof that the surge is working is in this years presidential election message. Look how little the debate about Iraq has came into play in the election. Compare that to the past.

If the surge was not working it would be the main and only focus in this presidential election.
And you know how Hillary and Obama would love to make it a main focus. I heard even the NY Times admitted it was working.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Cal said:
aplusmnt said:
The proof that the surge is working is in this years presidential election message. Look how little the debate about Iraq has came into play in the election. Compare that to the past.

If the surge was not working it would be the main and only focus in this presidential election.
And you know how Hillary and Obama would love to make it a main focus. I heard even the NY Times admitted it was working.

Yea if the surge was not working so well the catch word would be IRAQ instead of Change.

Maybe that is why the Dem's are not offering any kind of information on the issues. They were so counting on running on the Iraq platform that once that was not possible all their leaders could come up with on short notice is the word change. They might need a little longer to figure out exactly what change they are proposing.
 

Texan

Well-known member
Cal said:
Hey Texan, wonder what all of those f's stand for :wink: . This Misses has been at a convention in TX all week....sure wish I could have tagged along with her and looked you up, but have replacement heifers calving like it's going out of style.
Hey, Cal. It would have been great if you could have made it. Maybe some other time - y'all are always welcome. Or maybe we'll stop in to see you some day. One of these days we're gonna try to get away and head that direction - there's a lot of people here on Ranchers that I would really like to meet.
 

Cal

Well-known member
Texan said:
Cal said:
Hey Texan, wonder what all of those f's stand for :wink: . This Misses has been at a convention in TX all week....sure wish I could have tagged along with her and looked you up, but have replacement heifers calving like it's going out of style.
Hey, Cal. It would have been great if you could have made it. Maybe some other time - y'all are always welcome. Or maybe we'll stop in to see you some day. One of these days we're gonna try to get away and head that direction - there's a lot of people here on Ranchers that I would really like to meet.
That'd be awesome. Plenty of extra room if you care to stay here....we'd love to have you!
 
Top