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

What Happens After the Surge?

A

Anonymous

Guest
The good Col. is saying essentially what I have been saying for sometime...

What Happens After the Surge?
Saturday, March 08, 2008

By Col. David Hunt


The “surge” is about over. This infusion of 30,000 — mostly U.S. Army soldiers that have either been sent to Iraq or had their tours extended in Iraq to 15 months — will end next month. There are simply no more Marines and soldiers to send. By the middle of this summer, the number of U.S. military in Iraq will drop to 130,000 or so. It will take a few months to move the soldiers from Iraq to their bases.

The “surge” which began last February, has been an unqualified military success. The American soldier has made Iraq safer, rebuilt schools, hospitals and infrastructure. The American soldier has taken most of Al Qaeda down (that is the Al Qaeda that showed up after we took the place since there was hardly an Al Qaeda presence before we got there) in the Al Anbar Province, the large area west of Baghdad. This was due in large part to two things: our soldiers and Marines bravery, and our paying the Sunni Tribes to fight for us. At the same time, we have convinced, bribed and threatened Sadr, the leader of the Madhi Army, to not fight. Yes, our guys have done a terrific job, despite some of the poorest military and political leadership in history.

So, what does our military success in Iraq mean exactly? Well, it means that that our military is the best in the world, it means we should be very proud of our men and woman who fight for us, it means that if allowed to do their jobs, our military will always win. These are good things.

Now what exactly does the military success of the surge not mean? The successful surge does not mean "Iraq" is over, or a win, or a democracy. It does mean that Iran (you remember part of the “Axis of Evil”) and Iraq are partners. The Iranian president was just in Iraq, to sign an economic deal worth a billion dollars. China, yes China, is getting a similar deal. Now, I have said this before, but it is worth repeating we did not lose almost 4,000 soldiers and thousands more injured, so that IRAN can sign economic deals with IRAQ!

The surge does not even mean that the borders of Iraq are secure. Why would I say this, you ask? Oh, I don’t know, maybe because TURKEY HAS INVADED IRAQ.

The Turks, have gone after the PKK, a Terrorist/Insurgency Group. Now, let’s get this part straight – have our “friends” the Turks have invaded a country we are occupying? Yes, yes and yes. What do you suppose we are doing about this? The president of the United States virtually said, “Well they (the Turks) better get it done fast and get out of there.” Yes, sir, sounds like a plan to me. This is not success in Iraq … this is chaos.

It should matter that Americans are still dying in Iraq — but it doesn't appear to affect many of us. It should matter that we are still only faced with two choices, politically: stay the course, vote for McCain; get out now vote for Obama or Clinton. How about we vote for fighting smarter, better and harder.

So now to the title of this article. What happens after the surge. The one institution that is working in Iraq is the Iraqi military; it is getting better.

Once we get our act together politically and figure out what to do in Iraq, it will be up to the Iraqi military to act as the lynch pin, the back stop to whichever Iraqi government shows up. Iraq will look like Thailand or Pakistan or Indonesia, a government really being run by the military, corruption everywhere. Oh, and Iran will have enormous clout. This is clearly not the “democracy” we have been talking about, but it is the best we can “hope” for, and given the way we have acted or not acted in Iraq, it is probably the only working solution available.

We will be getting back the 30,000 soldiers that have been “surging.” Those returning heroes, return with pride to their families, families who suffered what all soldier’s family suffer, the unknown and the absence of those deployed. The soldiers return with wounds both physical and emotional. They return with tired bodies, but at least for them this part of the war is over … for now. The soldiers have learned the hard lessons of war. I wonder if the rest of us have been paying attention.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Colonel David Hunt, U.S. Army (Ret.), is a FOX News military analyst and the author of the New York Times bestseller They Just Don’t Get It. He has extensive operational experience in counterterrorism, special operations, and intelligence operations. He has trained the FBI and Special Forces in counterterrorism tactics, served as the security adviser to six different Olympic Games, testified as an expert at many major terrorist trials, and lectured at the CIA, the FBI, and the National Security Agency.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
kolanuraven said:
Notice how the ProWar folks have avoided this thread OT???


They don't have an answer either.

GEEEE- Here I thought these worldly warhawks would be explaining to me why the the Iraqi President was a hugging and kissing old Adumajug from Iran :???:

But I imagine that was banned from the neocon media sources....We wouldn't want to incite those deeply repressed feelings so many of the neocons (like Foley and Craig) seem to have :wink: :lol: :p

I thought about the same as the Colonel did-One dummy sent 4000 troops to die- so those two dummys can stand there kissing each other and setting up alliances - and eventually go back to being ruled by the mullah and gun anyway...... :roll: :( :( :mad:
 

Cal

Well-known member
With that going on you want to pull out? Looks more like permanent bases are needed a whole lot more there than in some other geographical locations.
 

Steve

Well-known member
OldTimer
GEEEE- Here I thought these worldly warhawks would be explaining to me why the the Iraqi President was a hugging and kissing old Adumajug from Iran

It is better then the thought of President Obama hugging and kissing old Adumajug from Iran :? :(
 

Steve

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Notice how the ProWar folks have avoided this thread OT???


They don't have an answer either.

it was Sunday so I was trying to be nice.. and turn the other cheek.. but now that you slapped it as well..

surrender in Iraq in not an answer !

The “surge” which began last February, has been an unqualified military success. The American soldier has made Iraq safer, rebuilt schools, hospitals and infrastructure. The American soldier has taken most of Al Qaeda down,... in the Al Anbar Province, the large area west of Baghdad. This was due in large part to:,... our soldiers and Marines bravery, Yes, our guys have done a terrific job, despite some of the poorest military and political leadership in history.

The policy going into Iraq may have been flawed ,but it was the Clinton policy who decided that we need to downsize our military.. and promoted generals who agreed with him..

Our soldiers have done a fine job and had they been allowed to fight harder, smarter,, they would have had better results then exist now..
"it means that if allowed to do their jobs, our military will always win."

Thinking surrender will win the Iraq war is either misguided at best or stupid.. or is even an answer is dangerous..

Col. Hunt: The ROE (Rules of Engagement, which literally mean when you can shot bad guys) written by lawyers approved by generals and bureaucrats in DC are pathetic. The ROE are designed to protect the generals and politicians from the realities of war. One such reality is, innocent lives are lost or bad things happen to good people. The generals who approve this insipid rules are reckless and the politians shameful.

Col. Hunt doesn't appear to like the generals that were on staff when this war started.. Generals that rose in the ranks and were approved by Clinton...
General officers are nominated for promotion by the President of the United States, and confirmed by the Senate.
The services hold in-service promotion boards to recommend officers for general officer promotion to the President. When vacancies occur (a general officer gets promoted or retires), the President nominates officers to be promoted from these lists (with advice from the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the applicable service)

Secretary of Defense,...announced today that the President (Bush) has nominated Maj. Gen. David H. Petraeus for appointment to the grade of lieutenant general
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
OldTimer
GEEEE- Here I thought these worldly warhawks would be explaining to me why the the Iraqi President was a hugging and kissing old Adumajug from Iran

It is better then the thought of President Obama hugging and kissing old Adumajug from Iran :? :(

At least I don't think he'd be afraid to talk to him and have open dialogue like some are :shock: - instead of walking around singing "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran in an old squeaky voice... :roll:

But the neocon establishment doesn't want a peaceful world- as that would interfer with their profiteering and put a focus back on the domestic issues, which they don't want to deal with .....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
From Oldtimer's post
How about we vote for fighting smarter, better and harder. ?

How about like not going unprepared into an unnecessary, unpopular, undeclared war without any idea of our purpose or goals- that then thru its micromanagement by the Administration and bureaucrats has changed repeatedly .....
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
Steve said:
surrender in Iraq in not an answer !

We won, remember?

President Bush said:
In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty, and for the peace of the world. Our nation and our coalition are proud of this accomplishment -- yet, it is you, the members of the United States military, who achieved it. Your courage, your willingness to face danger for your country and for each other, made this day possible. Because of you, our nation is more secure. Because of you, the tyrant has fallen, and Iraq is free.

The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html
 

Texan

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Notice how the ProWar folks have avoided this thread OT???


They don't have an answer either.
Maybe they read the first line and didn't read any more of it:

Oldtimer said:
The good Col. is saying essentially what I have been saying for sometime...

Why should anybody keep on reading if it's only more of the same old sht that Oldtimer has been spouting "for sometime"? Maybe people are getting tired of reading the same old sht over and over?

It's funny to me - not surprising, but funny - that OT failed to highlight one of the points in the article that some of the libs haven't admitted yet:



The “surge” which began last February, has been an unqualified military success.

I guess it doesn't fit into the Bush-bash agenda to admit that the Bush Administration has done something that works?
 

Mike

Well-known member
This thing in Iraq would have been over long ago had you wimpy-a$$ libs not been hollering to get our troops out.

You emboldened the enemy and drew them out of the bushes in droves so they could get their 72 virgins.

Just after the invasion, I and the rest of the country felt a feeling of patriotism that was bringing the U.S. together.....A few little IED's later and you wimps started screaming and holding hands together along with that ugly a$$ woman who moved in to Crawford, Tx and got big press.

You should all be ashamed to not have any more confidence in our fighting men than you did.

You did exactly the same thing in Vietnam, don't you ever learn?
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
Texan said:
I guess it doesn't fit into the Bush-bash agenda to admit that the Bush Administration has done something that works?
Ok, the violence is down. But the "surge" was to allow the Iraqi government time to consolidate and meet certain benchmarks of self-governance.

Name me a few of the benchmarks they have met..........

If none have been met, explain to me how we can afford to keep our troops at the current levels, explain to me where we are going to get the troops, and explain to me just WHEN Iraq will meet the self-governance benchmarks.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Death Blow to Defeatists
Yesterday we were losing in Iraq, today we are winning.

By Pete Hegseth

“Iraq’s parliament has adopted legislation on the reinstatement of former Baath party supporters to government jobs.” (AP, 1/12/08)

For anyone who truly understands the stakes in Iraq, the achievement of national “political benchmarks” has never been an effective metric of success. Sure, Iraqis passing laws at the national level is important, but not more important than neighborhood-level security and grassroots political progress.

I learned this the hard way in Samarra, Iraq. Absent strong local security forces and fair, representative government at the neighborhood level, local populations never felt “more secure,” no matter how much useless (or useful) legislation was passed at the national level. Iraqis need to see a better life in their neighborhood, not hear more promises from Baghdad.


And for the past six months — because of General Petraeus’s new counter-insurgency strategy and the courage of 165,000 Americans — Iraqis have seen hope (one might even say “audacious hope”), and they have responded. Bolstered by American commitment, and weary of al-Qaeda brutality, the Iraqi people — Sunni and Shia together in many areas — have started cooperating at the local level.

As a result, violence continues to plummet, with attacks throughout Iraq down 60 percent since June and civilian deaths down 75 percent from a year ago. Iraqis are returning home by the tens of thousands. The incoming flow of foreign fighters have been cut in half. And despite a “surge” of troops, American combat deaths are near all-time monthly lows in Iraq. This is all wonderful news.

All the while, the Defeat-o-cratic leadership in Congress (Reid, Pelosi, & co.) and the Defeat-o-cratic presidential candidates have done everything they can to deny — obvious — progress. I cite two very recent examples from the “clinging to defeat” caucus: First, four days ago Majority Leader Reid said in a statement, “As President Bush continues to cling stubbornly to his flawed strategy, al-Qaeda only grows stronger.” Tell that to al-Qaeda in Iraq, Mr. Majority Leader…those you can still find alive. And while a few defeated fighters may flee elsewhere, they have lost in Iraq. And losing is not an effective recruiting tool for jihadists.

Second, in a recent presidential debate, Senator Obama had the “audacity” to suggest that security improvements in Anbar Province were due to — you’re not going to believe this — the Democratic election gains in 2006! I’ve heard some twisted logic in my days, but that one takes the cake.

Apparently the Sunnis in Anbar were incentivized to rise up by the prospect of abandonment, and reacted accordingly. This sloppy — and overtly political — argument doesn’t pass the Counterinsurgency 101 test. Only when populations are empowered — through more security — can they take on the “occupiers” (read: al-Qaeda). When dealing with al-Qaeda, abandonment means slaughter and subjugation.

So, with their “defeat in Iraq” talking points in shambles (what happened to the “religious civil war with no end in sight” talking point?), this weekend’s news was a deathblow to defeatists. The Iraq parliament passed national de-Baathification legislation, and the New York Times printed it on the front page, which means it must be important, right?

For months the only argument the antiwar crowd could cling to was: “The surge has not brought about the national-level political progress it was intended to induce.” Ergo: We lose, bring ‘em home. While this argument requires a “willing suspension of disbelief” in light of recent improvements in Iraq, it was “technically” true.

No more.

The Iraqi parliament, flaws and all, came together — Sunni, Shia, and Kurd — to craft a law that relaxes restrictions on the right of former-members of Saddam Hussein’s Baath party to fill government posts. The law will reinstate thousands of Baathists in government jobs from which they had been dismissed shortly after the war.

In short, less than five years after the fall of a genocidal Sunni dictator — who killed thousands of Shiites and Kurds — a democratically elected Shia government granted de-facto “amnesty” to former Baathist co-conspirators. Kind of makes our domestic illegal-immigration “amnesty” debate look silly, doesn’t it?

We should expect more progress in Iraq, although results will be mixed and the streets will not be quiet soon. But this groundbreaking settlement is a testament to the potential for political reconciliation, provided the security environment is stable enough to allow politicians to peek out from behind their sectarian divisions.

The Iraqi government still has a great deal left to achieve, but today they’ve shown us what real political reconciliation looks like. Democratic leaders in Congress — and on the campaign trail — should take a lesson from the Maliki government. Swallow your pride, admit you were wrong about the surge, and get behind our courageous military.

Some courageous Democrats will do just that, others will continue to trumpet MoveOn.org talking points. The members who embrace MoveOn should remember that the American people may not like the war in Iraq, but they hate losing. Now that we’re winning, they won’t stand for talk of defeat.

In the meantime, the real credit must go to the courageous leaders who had the conviction to commit to Iraq when the outlook was bleak. Thank you, President Bush. Thank you, General Petraeus. Thank you, Ambassador Crocker. Thank you, Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman. Thank you to the 165,000 troops in Iraq. And thank you to the 3,921 fallen heroes of the Iraq war…your sacrifice was not in vain.

Yesterday we were losing in Iraq, today we are winning. Let us continue…together.

— Lt. Pete Hegseth, who served in Iraq with the 101st Airborne Division from 2005 to 2006, is executive director of Vets for Freedom.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
This thing in Iraq would have been over long ago had you wimpy-a$$ libs not been hollering to get our troops out.

Many true old conservatives think we should never have been there in the first place...Sorry- but nation building and warmongering are not old conservative values- only neocon values...

You emboldened the enemy and drew them out of the bushes in droves so they could get their 72 virgins.

Just after the invasion, I and the rest of the country felt a feeling of patriotism that was bringing the U.S. together.....A few little IED's later and you wimps started screaming and holding hands together along with that ugly a$$ woman who moved in to Crawford, Tx and got big press.

A few little IED's :???: How about 5 years, 4,000 dead, thousands injured and a war bill they are now figuring could run $2 Trillion dollars that has led us into recession and almost imploded our economy..... :( :mad:
Oh- thats right your cultist leader won't let you use that nasty "R" word...


You should all be ashamed to not have any more confidence in our fighting men than you did.
I have all the confidence and pride in the world of our fighting men- when they are allowed to do the job they were trained for- fighting....But nationbuilding in a nation that has never known a free type of government is not one of the jobs they are trained for or were ever meant to do....

You did exactly the same thing in Vietnam, don't you ever learn?

And GW and this bunch of neocons in D.C. did exactly the same political/bureaucratic micro- managing, changing the rules of engagement, changing the mission, stop and go that overtook that war...
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Steve said:
kolanuraven said:
Notice how the ProWar folks have avoided this thread OT???


They don't have an answer either.

it was Sunday so I was trying to be nice.. and turn the other cheek.. but now that you slapped it as well..

surrender in Iraq in not an answer !

The “surge” which began last February, has been an unqualified military success. The American soldier has made Iraq safer, rebuilt schools, hospitals and infrastructure. The American soldier has taken most of Al Qaeda down,... in the Al Anbar Province, the large area west of Baghdad. This was due in large part to:,... our soldiers and Marines bravery, Yes, our guys have done a terrific job, despite some of the poorest military and political leadership in history.

The policy going into Iraq may have been flawed ,but it was the Clinton policy who decided that we need to downsize our military.. and promoted generals who agreed with him..

Our soldiers have done a fine job and had they been allowed to fight harder, smarter,, they would have had better results then exist now..
"it means that if allowed to do their jobs, our military will always win."

Thinking surrender will win the Iraq war is either misguided at best or stupid.. or is even an answer is dangerous..

Col. Hunt: The ROE (Rules of Engagement, which literally mean when you can shot bad guys) written by lawyers approved by generals and bureaucrats in DC are pathetic. The ROE are designed to protect the generals and politicians from the realities of war. One such reality is, innocent lives are lost or bad things happen to good people. The generals who approve this insipid rules are reckless and the politians shameful.

Col. Hunt doesn't appear to like the generals that were on staff when this war started.. Generals that rose in the ranks and were approved by Clinton...
General officers are nominated for promotion by the President of the United States, and confirmed by the Senate.
The services hold in-service promotion boards to recommend officers for general officer promotion to the President. When vacancies occur (a general officer gets promoted or retires), the President nominates officers to be promoted from these lists (with advice from the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the applicable service)

Secretary of Defense,...announced today that the President (Bush) has nominated Maj. Gen. David H. Petraeus for appointment to the grade of lieutenant general


Forget Sunday....you must be smokin' one heck of a ' doobie' cause where in helle does it say we surrender?

And to whom would we surrender anyway? We're not fighting an organized army of any sorts.....shameful as it is...there is no one to surrender to even if the opportunity presented itself!!!

Geeze you guys can't see past your brown nosed Rep noses!!
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
— Lt. Pete Hegseth, who served in Iraq with the 101st Airborne Division from 2005 to 2006, is executive director of Vets for Freedom.
A quote from a sycophant from the neocon cadre does denote success. Find a legitimate, unbiased source and you might be believed.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President, announced that he would would make an unprecedented official vist to Baghdad next month.

Mr Ahmadinejad, accompanied by a group of ministers, will meet Nouri al-Maliki, the Prime Minister, and Jalal Talabani, the President, during the two-day trip from March 2.

General Odierno welcomed the sharp drop in violence across the country and highlighted progress on the political front but said that he was aware of the challenges that lay ahead. “I am proud that we have been able to increase security here and provide a window of opportunity for the Government to act,” the second-in-command of US forces said after a ceremony to hand over control to his replacement.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3372767.ece

You think it was some sort of surge? I think it was Iran that has reduced the conflicts. When you combine that with the ethnic cleansing that has taken place over the past five years, it is natural that the violence would have decreased.

Your Lieutenant is a moron.......but that is what morons quote, isn't it?
 

Steve

Well-known member
Goodpasture said:
Steve said:
surrender in Iraq in not an answer !

We won, remember?

President Bush said:
In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty, and for the peace of the world. Our nation and our coalition are proud of this accomplishment -- yet, it is you, the members of the United States military, who achieved it. Your courage, your willingness to face danger for your country and for each other, made this day possible. Because of you, our nation is more secure. Because of you, the tyrant has fallen, and Iraq is free.

The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html

Only a liberal democrat could take a victory and a successful military surge.. and surrender, after already winning.. , well maybe them and the french.. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
 

Steve

Well-known member
KolanuRaven
Forget Sunday....you must be smokin' one heck of a ' doobie' cause where in helle does it say we surrender?

What do you call quitin a war before it is finished and leaving so the enemy can take over?

Surrender is when soldiers, nations or other combatants stop fighting, either as individuals or when ordered to by their officers.
Entire nations can also surrender in an attempt to end a war or military conflict.

so unless were are going to wipe the al-queada off the map.. which would be avictory..

When we stop fighting and give up.. as ordered by the liberal in charge it is by definition a surrender..
 

Steve

Well-known member
GP
You think it was some sort of surge? I think it was Iran that has reduced the conflicts.

Only you would give credit for the success of our militarys' hard work to the iranians.. :mad: :mad:
 
Top