Surge this!

[maineman]

still trying to get you to stand by your own assertions.

so let's try this again:

Why won't you defend your OWN words?

Why won't you show us how we saw a 60% decrease in casualties when the DoD data clearly shows that Casualties over the last seven months are 52% HIGHER than the previous seven months?

Why don't you EXPLAIN why Iran would fund the sunni arab organization that is killing its brethren shiites in Iraq?

 

[red states rule]

I am enjoying watching you evade the pending implosion of your party MM

 

[maineman]

I am evading NOTHING. I am sitting here waiting for you to show some balls and back up your previous remarks. will that happen any time soon?

 

[Rosotar]

I am enjoying watching you evade the pending implosion of your party MM

Meanwhile you still can't back up your claim.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/w...273ecb847&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

 

[red states rule]

Meanwhile you still can't back up your claim.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/w...273ecb847&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Dems wants to surrender - what is to back up?

 

[red states rule]

What do the troops have to say?

http://www.nmatv.com/flvplayer.swf?...ideo/39.flv&autostart=false&showfsbutton=true

 

[maineman]

how's that 60% reduction in American casualties due to the success of the surge workin' out for ya, RSR?

 

[red states rule]

how's that 60% reduction in American casualties due to the success of the surge workin' out for ya, RSR?

The surge is showing progrese - that is why Dems want to surredner and get out

 

[maineman]

The surge is showing progrese - that is why Dems want to surredner and get out

you SAID that the surge had caused a 60% decrease in American casualties. Do you still stand behind that statement or are you ready to retract it?

 

[red states rule]

you SAID that the surge had caused a 60% decrease in American casualties. Do you still stand behind that statement or are you ready to retract it?

The surge is having good results and libs are worried the US military might actually win in Iraq

 

[maineman]

The surge is having good results and libs are worried the US military might actually win in Iraq

is one of those "good results" a 60% decrease in American casualties as you previously claimed?

 

[red states rule]

is one of those "good results" a 60% decrease in American casualties as you previously claimed?

Interim report on the surge
By Michael O'Hanlon
May 11, 2007


Viewing trends through April, it is possible to be a bit more specific now about what is and what is not with the surge-based strategy so far. That said, it must be underscored that with only three of the five additional planned U.S. brigades in place, and only about half of all "joint security stations" established throughout Iraq's neighborhoods, results must be viewed as provisional.
On the positive side, extrajudicial killings are down substantially in Iraq, with official U.S. data showing a two-thirds reduction relative to January levels. This reflects a broader reality -- much of the civil warfare that characterized Iraq in 2006 has been suppressed, at least temporarily. This is largely due to the willingness of the major Shia militias, including the Mahdi Army of Sheikh Moqtada al-Sadr, to lie low for the time being. However any such restraint may prove just temporary.
There are some additional good signs. Most notably, the willingness of Sunni tribal leaders in Al Anbar Province to collaborate with each other as well as U.S. and Iraqi authorities in opposing al Qaeda in that region has been very heartening. Correspondingly, violence is down in the region, with reported daily attack rates in and around Ramadi declining from 25 to just four over recent weeks.
That said, on balance it is hard to view the surge as a success to date. Two major problems stand out. As a result of these two unfavorable trends, many derivative problems and challenges remain largely intractable thus far.
The first major enduring problem is the continued resilience of al Qaeda and related terrorist elements. Their use of vehicle bombs and vest bombs has been extensive enough that overall fatality rates in Iraq have not declined since the surge began, at least according to the best available data. A corollary is that the Shia in Iraq are suffering a disproportionately high share of the casualties. (Not all bombings are aimed at them, but many are, and with the Shia militias showing restraint in their extrajudicial killings, the dominant form of violence is in fact most affecting Shia.)
Second, Iraqi political compromise remains very limited. All American officials including Gen. David Petraeus underscore the degree to which the surge cannot succeed based on a narrow military logic. At best, it can create political space for compromise that has often proved elusive during Iraq's periods of most intensive violence. Unfortunately, there is little sign of progress along such lines to date. While the hydrocarbon law that would ensure fair sharing of oil revenues among all Iraqis has made some progress in its journey through parliament, little has happened over the last month, and the bill is still far from becoming law. Other areas where reconciliation and compromise are needed, such as reforming the de-Ba'athification process to allow lower-level Ba'athists to rejoin public life and compete again for jobs, are not showing much progress.
As the Pentagon's special investigator has just confirmed in his latest quarterly report, Iraq's economy remains mediocre at best. The combination of oil revenue and foreign aid, together with last year's wise reforms of overly generous consumer subsidies, mean that federal coffers are in good shape. But even if there is money to spend, it is not being spent, and certainly not being spent well. A combination of violence, corruption, and federal interference in the efficient flow of some funds straight to provincial governments is impeding progress.
Utility performance remains stuck around Saddam Hussein levels at best, for most things (besides telephone and internet access, which are way up). Schools are not functioning well and health infrastructure is in even worse shape. Unemployment remains mired in the 30-plus percent range. None of this is surprising in light of the security picture, but it is disheartening nonetheless.
On balance, the picture in Iraq has some signs of hope, but continues to present more grounds for worry than for confidence. Unless things improve steadily and substantially in the coming months, it will be hard to believe the new surge-based strategy can succeed.
Afterword: National Security Adviser Steven Hadley has recently come under criticism for wanting -- and being unable to quickly find -- a prominent "czar" to help him with Iraq policy at the National Security Council. I think his idea is a good one and expect he will be able to find the right person soon, but it will not be a czar. That term implies a person to rethink the fundamentals of the policy.
Should such rethinking happen again, as may be necessary in coming months if the surge fails, I am confident Mr. Hadley will indeed coordinate that effort, as his job requires. Meanwhile, the administration needs someone to crack heads within the bureaucracy and deliver to Gen. Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker the resources and people they request as quickly and completely as possible. It is appropriate that Mr. Hadley ask for help with such tasks, which involve the mechanics of government more than high policy, and therefore are appropriate for him to delegate.

Michael O'Hanlon is senior fellow at Brookings Institution.


http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20070510-092026-5150r.htm

 

[maineman]

I don't see anything in there about a 60% reduction in American casualties. Care to explain how that particular cut and paste answers the question that was asked of you?

 

[red states rule]

I don't see anything in there about a 60% reduction in American casualties. Care to explain how that particular cut and paste answers the question that was asked of you?

The surge is showing progress so I understand your dismay and depression

 

[maineman]

either back up your assertion that American casualties are down by 60% due to the success of the surge....or retract it.... or shut the fuck up.

take your pick....any one of the three options will be fine with me.

 

[red states rule]

either back up your assertion that American casualties are down by 60% due to the success of the surge....or retract it.... or shut the fuck up.

take your pick....any one of the three options will be fine with me.

Ah, getting testy over the truth again

 

[maineman]

Ah, getting testy over the truth again

so you are claiming that the statement "American casualties are down 60% due to the success of the surge" is the TRUTH????

prove it.

 

[red states rule]

so you are claiming that the statement "American casualties are down 60% due to the success of the surge" is the TRUTH????

prove it.

Libs just can't get get over the surge is showing signs of progress

Sad when when people put their party ahead of their country

 

[maineman]

Libs just can't get get over the surge is showing signs of progress

Sad when when people put their party ahead of their country

I have never denied that the surge is not showing signs of progress. I only doubt your assertion that it has resulted in a 60% decrease in American casualties. can you either back that up, or retract it or shut up?

 

[red states rule]

I have never denied that the surge is not showing signs of progress. I only doubt your assertion that it has resulted in a 60% decrease in American casualties. can you either back that up, or retract it or shut up?

the why do you support the surrender bill