in case you thought Patraeus was apolitical ...

[Irvine511]

... you can take that delusion and stuff it.

he's giving a one-hour exclusive interview to Brit Hume tomorrow after he gives a glowing report about "the surge" to Congress all day long.

i'm sure he'll be tired after all that testifyin' (testify!), so no hard questions, mmm-kay?

you know, "the surge" that was supposed to enable a political reconciliation in Iraq? we can talk all day about how this neighborhood has 30% fewer murders (but let's not talk about the Iraqis who've fled, and remember, Iraqis who've been shot in the head through the forehead aren't victims of ethnic violence but criminal violence, and that's a big difference) but there's no getting around the fact that there's been absolutely no, none, nada political progress in Iraq and we've given said "surge" 9 months.

a big round of applause to the total politicization of any and all policy and intelligence. that's the true legacy of the Bush administration. there is no policy that's formulated independent of the political.

and shame on Patraeus. but, hey, when you want to be on the R ticket in 2012, one has to put things other than the troops on the ground first.

 

[A_Wanderer]

And thus the wheel of partisan politics rolls around, whatever happened to "listen to the generals"?

Any success in Iraq regardless of how patchy and unmatched by political reconciliation has to be tempered by the fact that Bush took so long to actually take heed of any advice to mount a solid counterinsurgency strategy.

 

[Infinity]

Why do I have the feeling that whether the Patraeus report is positive or negative, there will be no change in strategy by the Bush Administration?



Let me add to that, why do I have the feeling that the Patraeus report will be a negative one disguised as positive one.

Is it just me?

 

[AEON]

And why do I have the feeling that if General Petreaus was going to share awful news that he would be the most quoted general in history?

Too many politicians have staked the careers on defeat in Iraq. There is no way these people will accept any news that doesn't support their anti-war rhetoric.

 

[Irvine511]

And why do I have the feeling that if General Petreaus was going to share awful news that he would be the most quoted general in history?

Too many politicians have staked the careers on defeat in Iraq. There is no way these people will accept any news that doesn't support their anti-war rhetoric.

then why go on FOX NEWS and grant them the ONLY exclusive post-testimony interview?

one president has staked his entire presidency on good news from Iraq, and in order for him to push responsiblity for the debacle to the next president (likely Democratic) and begin the creation of a new, Veitnam-style "THE LIBRULS STABBED US 'N THE BACK" narrative, he needs *good* news.

the truth of the matter is that there hasn't been any progress from the surge. the surge was supposed to quell the violence, especially in Baghdad, so that the political situation has improved.

the political situation has not improved. it has gotten worse. by the surge's OWN STANDARDS it has failed.

 

[2861U2]

then why go on FOX NEWS and grant them the ONLY exclusive post-testimony interview?

This again?

the truth of the matter is that there hasn't been any progress from the surge. the surge was supposed to quell the violence, especially in Baghdad, so that the political situation has improved.

the political situation has not improved. it has gotten worse. by the surge's OWN STANDARDS it has failed.

You don't follow the news much, do you?

Violence in Baghdad most certainly is down since the surge- BY 75%!!. Both combat deaths and sectarian violence in Iraq (and ESPECIALLY in Baghdad) are down from last spring. I get frustratingly angry at people like you, Irvine, who focus on WHATEVER bad news there is and will not acknowledge ANY good news. Remember a while ago Congress was saying "we cannot win militarily or politically." Well guess what. It looks like we are starting to win militarily. But the Democrats won't admit it. They still focus on the bad. They still focus on the lack of political stability (which is definetely important) despite all the progress made.

Most people, including you, Irvine, have already made up their mind regardless of what Petreaus will say, and aren't even willing to listen to him. Shame on you, Irvine, for so easily discounting the man and for making this political.

 

[Irvine511]

This again?

they're not going on any netowork but Fox.

why would they do this?




[q]You don't follow the news much, do you?

Violence in Baghdad most certainly is down since the surge- BY 75%!!.[/q]

i want you to cite this. take your college paper writing skills and use them to cite a source. and then get back to me.

and when you cite a conservative source, i'll inform you as to just how cherry-picked those numbers are (like the thing i mentioned about how they don't count being shot in the front of the head? that's true)



[q]Both combat deaths and sectarian violence in Iraq (and ESPECIALLY in Baghdad) are down from last spring. I get frustratingly angry at people like you, Irvine, who focus on WHATEVER bad news there is and will not acknowledge ANY good news. Remember a while ago Congress was saying "we cannot win militarily or politically." Well guess what. It looks like we are starting to win militarily. But the Democrats won't admit it. They still focus on the bad. They still focus on the lack of political stability (which is definetely important) despite all the progress made.[/q]

and this is why the Republicans won in '04. people like you are easily duped. it doesn't matter what happens militarily if nothing politically happens. the Iraqi government doesn't function. the Sunnis walked out of parliment over the summer.

but continue to whine, and continue to sob about how 'Mericans dont realy lose wars, 'cept when the libruls start to say mean things that get you upset.

you see? you're already buying into the "stabbed in the back" narrative.

Most people, including you, Irvine, have already made up their mind regardless of what Petreaus will say, and aren't even willing to listen to him. Shame on you, Irvine, for so easily discounting the man and for making this political.

thank you for the best example of the pot calling the kettle black that i've seen in a long, long time.

everyone in DC knows that Petraeus is a Republican, that he has political ambitions, and that he's only going to allow himself to appear on Fox News -- this is the equivalent of Bush's political "meetings" in '04 where every member of the audience was screened before hand and given scripted, soft-ball questions that he's already prepared to answer.

the reason this is political is because Bush has politicized absolutely *all* aspects of government -- the military to the judiciary to the intelligence community. there is nothing that isn't politicized.

so they can continue to fool people like you.

 

[2861U2]

they're not going on any netowork but Fox.

why would they do this?

Hmm... perhaps because he's aware Fox is by far the most watched outlet. What did you want him to do? Go on MSNBC where a small fraction would hear him?

i want you to cite this. take your college paper writing skills and use them to cite a source. and then get back to me.

Here you go:

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/09/09/africa/ME-ANL-Iraq-Judging-The-Surge.php

http://www.albawaba.com/en/countries/Iraq/216710

you see? you're already buying into the "stabbed in the back" narrative.

Sir, I'm not buying into anything, so get off it.

so they can continue to fool people like you.

Right. If learning that we are making progress in Iraq makes me a fool, then so be it.

 

[DaveC]

I was going to say something, but I think I'll stay the eff out of this one...

 

[Irvine511]

Hmm... perhaps because he's aware Fox is by far the most watched outlet. What did you want him to do? Go on MSNBC where a small fraction would hear him?

yes, why would he go on CBS, ABC, or NBC where 10s of millions of people watch?




oh man, do you really want to do this to yourself?

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/09/09/africa/ME-ANL-Iraq-Judging-The-Surge.php

Headline:
[q]The Iraqi reality: Violence down slightly in Baghdad but politics still vicious[/q]


http://www.albawaba.com/en/countries/Iraq/216710

and this one, you're quoting Maliki?!?!?! are you serious?

and neither of these articles disputes the core of what i'm saying: THERE HAS BEEN ZERO POLITICAL PROGRESS, WHICH WAS THE STATED GOAL OF THE SURGE.



[q]Sir, I'm not buying into anything, so get off it.[/q]

okay, we'll just let your words do the talking.

Right. If learning that we are making progress in Iraq makes me a fool, then so be it.

feels good, i'm sure.

 

[Irvine511]

[q]Poll Highlights Disconnect Between U.S. Commanders, Iraqis
By Megan Greenwell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 10, 2007; 8:16 AM


BAGHDAD, Sept. 10 -- Seven out of 10 Iraqis believe the U.S. troop buildup in Baghdad and Anbar province has made security worse in those areas, and nearly as many say their own lives are going badly, according to a new poll conducted by ABC News, the British Broadcasting Corp., and the Japanese broadcaster NHK.

The poll reveals a disconnect between U.S. commanders' view of a steadily improving situation in Iraq and a bleaker outlook among Iraqis. As Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker prepare to testify before Congress on Monday and Tuesday about the results of the troop increase, poll numbers show that ordinary Iraqis are significantly more likely to say "things are going badly" than in the early days of the increased military presence in March.

Fewer than one-quarter of Iraqis report that things in Iraq are going well, down from 35 percent in March, while the number of people who expect conditions to improve in the next year has declined precipitously.

In November 2005, shortly before Iraq's historic open elections, 69 percent of residents said they believed life would be better in a year. That number decreased to 40 percent last March and 23 percent in the new poll.

The poll showed improvements in some areas since March, including an increase in the number of people who expressed confidence in Iraq's army and police force and a decrease in the number of people expressing confidence in militia groups. And the troop increase appears to have had some benefit for Iraqis, as a greater number of residents in Anbar province and Baghdad -- where most of the additional units are based -- rate local security positively.

Yet many of the differences between the official and popular views of conditions in Iraq are most pronounced in Anbar, where President Bush made a surprise visit last week and declared that "normal life is returning." Although the percentage of Anbar residents who have a favorable view of local security has increased to 38 percent from zero in March, 62 percent still rate security negatively overall. Meanwhile, the level of satisfaction in other quality-of-life categories -- including the availability of jobs, supply of clean water and freedom of movement -- has decreased since March.

Overall, one-quarter of Iraqis say they feel very safe in their own neighborhoods, the same number as before 30,000 additional U.S. troops began arriving in February. In Baghdad and Anbar, none of the people polled said they feel "very safe." Six out of 10 people believe that security is worse in Iraq than six months ago, while just 11 percent believe security has improved.[/q]

 

[BVS]

The holes people dig themselves in...

 

[Infinity]

The definition of violence in Iraq has changed. I think the definition now only includes bombs but does not include those who die with gunshots. Therefore, it will be an illusion when the report says violence in Iraq is down.

Secondly, even if it is truly down. When we withdraw, its going to shoot up overnight. Neo-cons say that we are killing terrorists in Iraq but they fail to mention that more and more "ordinary" people are becoming terrorists. They fail to notice that more and more ordinary Shiites and ordinary Sunnis are taking up arms to kill each other. They fail to notice that more and more insurgents are entering Iraq from Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

So the only military way we can truly stabilize ALL of Iraq is by sending in a million man army patrolling every single street corner in the country. But of course, when we leave, whether it is tomorrow, next year, or in 10 years, there is going to be a full blown Civil War in that country and then after all the bloodshed, it will finally stabilize.

I hate it when people say "we will win, we will win." We won in three days. We took over the country in three days. That was a war. The situation we are in now is NOT a war that we are fighting. Our soldiers are simply caught in between a war between the Sunnis and Shiites. Our soldiers are being used as police officers, not soldiers.

 

[DaveC]

Hey guys, you're never gonna believe it!!

Petraeus says the surge is working!

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/10/iraq.petraeus/index.html

 

[Irvine511]

So the only military way we can truly stabilize ALL of Iraq is by sending in a million man army patrolling every single street corner in the country. But of course, when we leave, whether it is tomorrow, next year, or in 10 years, there is going to be a full blown Civil War in that country and then after all the bloodshed, it will finally stabilize.

I hate it when people say "we will win, we will win." We won in three days. We took over the country in three days. That was a war. The situation we are in now is NOT a war that we are fighting. Our soldiers are simply caught in between a war between the Sunnis and Shiites. Our soldiers are being used as police officers, not soldiers.

you are absolutely correct.

 

[deep]

This is really strange


How would we take it if the Soviets were holding a summit on Afghanistan talking about what their goals there are.

And what is the best way to achieve them.



The Iraqis goals, and each group has their own, does not line up with what these jackasses are talking about.


They have a few phony figure heads that show up and take our money.

The Soviets had people that would do the same in Afghanistan, that did not hold

And this will not hold, either.

 

[Irvine511]

The Soviets had people that would do the same in Afghanistan, that did not hold

And this will not hold, either.

um, hello? the Soviets were godless communists, not patrotic can-do Americans.

haven't you been paying attention? Petraeus just told us that the heterosexual "Surge" has reduced the potency of the "InSurgency" to what it was 18 months ago! that's incredible! it doesn't matter that it's way, way, way stronger than it was in 2003, 2004, 2005 and early 2006. it's better than it was when we started! see! Iraq hasn't totally slid into a deep black hellhole of bonecrunching sectarian violence where Sunnis put Shiites in ovens, and vice versa. see! when you set the bar really, really, really low, things can start to look really up!

 

[kellyahern]

So the only military way we can truly stabilize ALL of Iraq is by sending in a million man army patrolling every single street corner in the country. But of course, when we leave, whether it is tomorrow, next year, or in 10 years, there is going to be a full blown Civil War in that country and then after all the bloodshed, it will finally stabilize.

Exactly. Which is why we are stuck there. We never should have gone into Iraq because now we're stuck there and there's no good way out. Meanwhile there was a suicide bombing in Afghanistan today and we still haven't caught Osama Bin Laden.

 

[trevster2k]

Bush ain't doing anything with Iraq. He is leaving that mess for the Democrat president who replaces him. Then the Republicans will use that issue to attack the new president since no matter what the plan is, stay,leave or whatever, it ain't gonna be pretty.

 

[Irvine511]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_legend



and it works for the US in Vietnam as well. don't you know? Jane Fonda defeated the US Army in 1972.

 

[A_Wanderer]

um, hello? the Soviets were godless communists, not patrotic can-do Americans.

haven't you been paying attention? Petraeus just told us that the heterosexual "Surge" has reduced the potency of the "InSurgency" to what it was 18 months ago! that's incredible! it doesn't matter that it's way, way, way stronger than it was in 2003, 2004, 2005 and early 2006. it's better than it was when we started! see! Iraq hasn't totally slid into a deep black hellhole of bonecrunching sectarian violence where Sunnis put Shiites in ovens, and vice versa. see! when you set the bar really, really, really low, things can start to look really up!

For all the hyperbole do you make the distinction between sectarian violence and that directed at US forces? Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia for instance has lost it's safe havens due to the pressures on the Sunni tribes because of the sectarianism - as that war goes to the fore the insurgency fades and pales.

 

[Irvine511]

For all the hyperbole do you make the distinction between sectarian violence and that directed at US forces? Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia for instance has lost it's safe havens due to the pressures on the Sunni tribes because of the sectarianism - as that war goes to the fore the insurgency fades and pales.

when it comes to the Surge's stated goal -- military stability to facilitate political reconciliation -- it doesn't matter much if the violence is from Al-Qaeda or Sunni-on-Shiitte-or-vice-versa. instability is instability. it continues to be so, and "the Surge" is not just politically useless, but militarily as well because it's not addressing the real causes of the unrest in Baghdad.

i've also said in here that the moderate successes battling AQM in Al-Anbar posit a way out of Iraq -- sure, you're a Sunni and you hate the Shiites, but if you see the increasingly desperate AQM tactics, you're going to hate them more. the enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend. and this has little to do with "the Surge" which is mostly in Baghdad.

 

[A_Wanderer]

it doesn't matter much if the violence is from Al-Qaeda or Sunni-on-Shiitte-or-vice-versa

I would think that it matters a great deal, especially if you support a timetable for a phased withdrawl over the next year, if there are safe havens for international terrorist organisations the blowback is much greater than that of tribal war and ethnic cleansing - the marginalisation of AQ in Iraq is a boon for getting foreign forces out of the country, much more than finding that an acceptable price to pay.

 

[Irvine511]

I would think that it matters a great deal, especially if you support a timetable for a phased withdrawl over the next year, if there are safe havens for international terrorist organisations the blowback is much greater than that of tribal war and ethnic cleansing - the marginalisation of AQ in Iraq is a boon for getting foreign forces out of the country, much more than finding that an acceptable price to pay.

insofar as an exit strategy, i agree; insofar as creating enough stability for the government to function, i do not agree.

there are two different goals here.

and we could knock out AQM for all intents and purposes, leave, and the lack of a government could provide another Afghanistan for AQI.

so, ultimately, we're kind of fucked no matter what.

 

[kellyahern]

so, ultimately, we're kind of fucked no matter what.

I think that sums up the whole war in one sentence.

 

[Infinity]

so, ultimately, we're kind of fucked no matter what.

AMEN!

 

[deep]

To be fair,
these guys, Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker

have a better plan and execution than the meandering mess that has has happened from 2003 on

but, even doing things right now will not put it all back together again

I heard Crocker say
"Am I positive this will work? No.
But I am optimistic."

I can't tell you how many times I have heard a Doctor say almost the same thing
when I have gone to visit a terminally ill person.

 

[AEON]

To be fair,
these guys, Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker

have a better plan and execution than the meandering mess that has has happened from 2003 on

Amen. If only Petraeus was in charge then...

 

[Irvine511]

Amen. If only Petraeus was in charge then...

i can agree with this.

but with the caveat that we'd have needed a different president and SecDef.

 

[Varitek]

This again?




You don't follow the news much, do you?

Violence in Baghdad most certainly is down since the surge- BY 75%!!. Both combat deaths and sectarian violence in Iraq (and ESPECIALLY in Baghdad) are down from last spring.

They are not counting car bombs as violence, for reasons beyond comprehension (oh wait...I understand...they are cooking the books to make it look better!). Nor are they counting violence between people within the same sect, just violence that is sect-against-sect. However, violence within sects has gone up.