Debate Question: Will you admit the "surge" worked?

This question from Charlie bothered me ever since he asked it in the ABC NEWS debates.

I will need some help here, because I have not been able to find any supportive links in Google to link to. But I have heard it on NPR twice now, most recently this morning (01/07/2008).

First of all, I want to applaud all of the candidates because they all re-framed the question in the "long -term".

Are we any closer to a political solution? No.

But, just for those who want to point to a decrease in "violence" and American deaths since the surge was implemented - it was NOT because of the surge.

There was a group of Sunni Insurgents that had previously aligned themselves with non-Iraqi forces that inflicted major damage on our troops. This group decided on their own to change their alignment. they suddenly decided that Americans were only a minor, but their former allies were a bigger threat. So, they shifted their alliance and began fighting with US instead of against us.

This is the REAL reason that fewer Americans are dying. Not because we sent a "surge" of troops, but because the political atmosphere has changed.


I thought all of the Dem candidates did a good job of pointing out what the "ultimate goal" is, if some tells you that the "surge worked" - NO, it did not. We got lucky, that's all.

kurth

The ammunition dumps that the former Iraqi Armed forces had, and who was given away almost as "free" after the "successfully" war in 2003 should given Iraqi insurgents decades worth.. And I doubt they have used ALL this ammo allready..

The armed forces who occupied Iraqi was more busy with controlling the oil sector, to secure, or blow up the ammo so nobody can use it.. It should be that difficult to blow up the tonnes of ammo whats laing around in dumbs ready to be used.. Use little explosive, and stay AWAY from the blast site.. Then the ammo would not be a worry, as it was and are today..

We can always "hope" that they are out of ammo, but I doubt that really is the fact... Rather the opposite

Diclotican

Sorry my bad English, not my native language

kurth

Well, if you go back to the writing, from Time magazine and its like in 2003 and forward you would find a lot of reportages from the area, and given a fair information about what the US armed forces was protection in Iraq.. And what they DON'T protected when they had the opportunity to do something with all the ammo that was laying around..

Even I, that have English as a second language, (and not very good at it) had read it so I guess you, who have English as your first language should manage very nicely to read it I guess:think:

Even today, in Norway we sometimes find ammo dumbs from WW2 in the woods.. Most of it was taking away when the war was over, and we do have a ordered surrender to Norwegian officals..But some ammo was been digging down, and never taken out again.. And now over 60 year, some of it are still there...

Diclotican

Sorry my bad English, not my native language

kurth

You are welcome,). We are here to learn, and to give information you know;)

And I have learned a lot when here..

Diclotican

Sorry my bad English, not my native language

the ice pack I gave her helped?

No this is not a true story but it is what I think about in regards to these surge questions.

'Will you admit the surge worked?'

as opposed to what I remember. I am going through the transcript now to find the exact quote.
Thanks for keeping me honest!

:) I wasn't trying to put you on the spot. I like to find out exactly how outrageous things really are.

But, I see what you're saying, that that was the implication. The questions were pre-loaded.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=4092530&page=2

Pretty bad, IMHO.

The implication: We're saying the surge has worked. You're not going to disagree that the surge has worked, are you?

Then they expect to be congratulated because they rescued the neighbors cat from the tree.

The details of what happens on the ground are not broadcast to the public. ABC may pretend the surge is what caused things to change but they're wrong.

If a rooster crows and then dawn breaks, was the chicken's cry successful in making the sun rise?

You know, the violence in Iraq has been up and down about as much as the Stock Market under Dubya. It's hard to look at a few months and declare a success when this could be just another down cycle in violence. Furthermore, wasn't the intent of the surge to allow the Iraqi government the space to accomplish certain political goals? And haven't they missed those goals?

So, uh, define success.

Makes Charlie Gibson look like a Repub stoogie!:eyes:

B-)

http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/


TELL THE PARENTLESS CHILDREN AND THE CHILDLESS PARENTS!

in the area where it existed, but that wasn't supposed to be the reason for it. It was supposed to create some breathing room for the Iraq government to get their act together and begin to rule their own country. I sure didn't see any of that!

The surge didn't make any difference whatsoever. The violence has decreased because of a major Sunni Insurgent group changeing alliances.

The surge had nothing to do with it.

moved trouble from Baghdad to Afghanistan. I will also point out that it doesn't matter how quiet it is now, but how quiet it is when the escalation is OVER and we leave. That will tell us if it worked. Further I ask whether our continued presence there has swelled the numbers of terrorist groups, to which I believe the answer is emphatically yes as all sources in the area have said.

If violence is down, is it because of the increased level of troops (the surge), is it because we have been making deals with and paying off our enemies (as happened with the Sunni insurgents in Anbar province), or is it because Muqtada al-Sadr has suspended the activities of his of Mehdi Army?

If it's because of the troop surge, what will happen as we pull back (as we do not have the troops to sustain that level)?

If it's because of deals to our enemies, will we need to keep paying them?

If it's because of al-Sadr's truce, what will happen if he calls it off?

And what about the definition of insurgent attack? If an Iraqi is shot in the back of the head, it's the insurgents. If he's shot in the front of the head, it's just a regular street crime.

But I think we all know that Gen Petreaus is God and everything he does is a miracle, so the surge must be working.

And I will admit I got part of it wrong - the Sunni Insurgents didn't just ally with us on their own. We PAID them! And we are still paying them!

Listen to the whole program if you get a chance.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17899543

It appears that the violence has slowed down from a variety of factors, cheifly that we are paying the Sunni insurgents to not fight.

And very little to do with the fact that we ramped up personnel last year.