Lorie,

If you are going to claim the New York Times and the BBC wrote articles about the surge working in Iraq why can't you link to the actual articles? The NYT link goes to the Weekly Standard's website and the BBC link goes to a blog I have never heard of. The BBC article which is linked to in the unknown blog is headlined: US Iraq chief warns of long war and is basically an interview with General Petraeus detailing the long commitment required by US forces if Iraq is to succeed. The weekly standard article doesn't even link to the NYT.

If this is the best evidence you have that the surge is working then it isn't much.

Blue, you have to actually read the article. For instance:

"The violence has subsided in Ramadi over the past six months - largely, correspondents say, because tribes have turned against al-Qaeda."

and:

"Gen Petraeus attributes this success to the recent surge in combat troop numbers, under which some 30,000 extra US troops have been deployed in Iraq, saying that although much work still remains to be done 'the surge is achieving progress on the ground'."

As for the Times article, very few people... especially ones here... would bother to pay for the dubious honor of reading their tripe, so what good would a link to theor registration page do?

You don't have to pay for it, brainless435, you can read it for free on the NYT site. No registration required.

The best reporter in Iraq is Michael Yon. He doesn't sugarcoat the story, he reports the facts and events as he sees them in real time, not from a hotel lobby in the Green Zone.
Somebody here was complaining the other night about our condoning torture in Iraq perpetrated by Iraqis against Iraqis.

Read Yon's dramatic description of an arrest made by a U S Colonel of an Iraqi General who was on our side but was suspected of torture.

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/

"The violence has subsided in Ramadi over the past six months - largely, correspondents say, because tribes have turned against al-Qaeda."

And we all know the tribes have turned against AQ because they see that the Democrats in the US are putting the heat on to get results or get out.

"Gen Petraeus attributes this success to the recent surge in combat troop numbers, under which some 30,000 extra US troops have been deployed in Iraq, saying that although much work still remains to be done 'the surge is achieving progress on the ground'."

Achieving progress? This administration has been telling us we're making great progress for years. It's bullshit.

Admit it, Lorie - you will be the last one standing on this issue. Why? Why are you so determined to be the last American standing in supppoprt of Bush in Iraq. It's illogical given the evidence - even the Republican 'wobblies' who have absolutely nothing to gain from because they aren't up for re-election are now admitting the truth about Iraq.

keep in mind that the goal of the surge was not simply to cut down on the violence, but to do so in order to give the Iraqis some breathing room to get their act together, both politically and militarily. While it would be nice if the surge did result in fewer deaths (at least fewer non-insurgent deaths), the real test is whether the Iraqis are doing what needs to be done. Will they have agreed on real power sharing? Will their Army and police forces be not only trained, but willing to put 'Iraq' ahead of their regional and clan loyalties? Will they show the initiative to rebuild their society? Will they resist the likes of Al Qaeda and Al Sadr?

So far, I've seen precious little to suggest that they are (and, given the reports of their summer long vacation, plenty to suggest that they're not). And if they aren't, then it really doesn't matter whether the surge results in a (temporary) reduction in violence; the Iraqis will have proven that they're incapable/unwilling to live together in peace. And if that's the case, we ought to get the heck out of there... not because the terrorists have beaten us, but because it wouldn't be right to have our troops die for the bunch of losers the Iraqis will have proven themselves to be. If they're unwilling to stand up and be counted, they ought not expect our troops to do it for them.

At the beginning of the Iraqi Conflict, many years ago, Colin Powell made a comment along the lines of "If you break it, you bought it." He, unfortunately, was right. Regardless of whether or not the war was/is legal, was/is just, was/is neccessary, we are morally obligated to finish it out.

We invaded Iraq on our dime. The Iraqi people, as much as some of them hated Hussein, didn't ask for us to invade. I am sure they would of supported us and been gleeful if we had kept our activities strictly limited to regime change. Unfortuantely, destroying their government, destroying their military, and disrupting what little infrastructure they had is our fault.
We don't get to say "Whoops, Our-bad," and go home. As much as Iraq sucked prior to our invasion, they at least didn't suffer from rampant terrorism, civil war, and danger of invasion/annexation from Iran. Whether we want to admit it or accept it or not, we brought that to them.

We are obliged not to leave Iraq until they have a functional government (regardless of type) and a military that can defend the country from enemies foriegn and domestic and protect the government. Hopefully, that will occur sooner than later, but I wouldn't put money on sooner.

Throughout this I have used words like We and Our. Regardless of political alignment, we as the people of the United states are responsible. It was our congress that gave our president permission to use our miltary to destroy Iraq. It was us, collectively that have refused to hold congress accountable. The majority of Democrat and Republicans that voted to abrogate their responsiblity to declare war are still in office. We haven't held them accountable. The Democrats and Republicans have refused to take decisive action to stop this war although they have several options to them. As citizens and voters we can change the actions of congress every time there is an election.

We have to stay until we have fixed what we broke.

Here's some more for you to ignore Neponset:

The irony is that this political retreat is taking place even as General David Petraeus's military offensive is showing signs of progress. "These Anbar [province] sheikhs who are cooperating with the United States have made an enormous difference in what was the most dangerous province in Iraq," said New York Times reporter John Burns in a recent interview on PBS's "NewsHour." "I was out there today at the capital, Ramadi . . . and it's gone from being the most dangerous place in Iraq . . . to being one of the least dangerous places."

Mr. Burns was talking about the trend among Sunni tribal chieftains to ally themselves with the U.S. and the Shiite government of Iraq against what they see as their gravest enemy: al Qaeda interlopers bent on making themselves the leaders of the Sunni community in Iraq. Al Qaeda has taken note of this shift by trying to murder the sheikhs, only increasing the rift between them.

That's a battle al Qaeda is likely to lose, provided U.S. forces are available in sufficient numbers to help Iraqi forces defeat them. It's also a battle that could bring moderate Sunnis on the same side as the predominantly Shiite government--just the sort of "reconciliation" our foreign policy mandarins have demanded of Iraqi leaders as the price of continued U.S. support.

Or as retired General Jack Keane told the New York Sun: "The tragedy of these efforts is we are on the cusp of potentially being successful in the next year in a way that we have failed in the three-plus preceding years, but because of this political pressure it looks like we intend to pull out the rug from underneath that potential success."

matt: you, and powell, are wrong. we are under no obligation whatsoever to fix Iraq. we went in to get rid of Hussein, a verified threat, and to eliminate whatever WMDs he might have had. Hussein and Iraq (through their refusal to rise up and throw his a** out) brought this on themselves and as far as I and a whole lot of others are concerned, they can clean up their own mess.

and remember, powell didn't come up with that little gem because he really believed it, he did so because he was grasping at straws to keep Bush from invading and with all of his other efforts (encouraging our allies to protest, failing to get the UN on board, etc.) coming up empty, he thought his little Pottery Barn ploy was as good as he had.

And we all know the tribes have turned against AQ because they see that the Democrats in the US are putting the heat on to get results or get out.

Wow, do you just make this stuff up, Lee?

The tribes have turned against AQ because a) they hate those fuckers; always have; b) the foreign fighters have outgrown whatever usefulness they may have had; and c) they are fed up with having their home blown to shit by foreign interlopers. In short, Iraqis ridding their lands of unwanted foreign fighters is nationalist housecleaning. They are not, in fact, fighting AQ for any reason having to do with American Democrats.

It sounds like the republicans are cutting and running. What a bunch of cowards. How can you people keep supporting them?

Violence will subside when the Iraqi's sign over the rights to their oil.

matt: you, and powell, are wrong. we are under no obligation whatsoever to fix Iraq.

I understand the point you are trying to make. However, it could be construed that it is okay for us to destroy a country and then leave because they "deserved" it.

You could use the same logic in Afghanistan. We should leave immediately because they didn't rise up and kick the Taliban's a** out. The Taliban that sponsored Al Quaeda, oppressed the entire population, is/was working to destabilize Pakistan etc.

AB:

Violence will subside when the Iraqi's sign over the rights to their oil.

You mean to China?

matt: that is exactly the way I intended my point to be construed. we have on obligation to do what is right for America, not to do what is right for the rest of the world. if destroying a country is good for America, then it gets destroyed. if rebuilding a country is good for us, then we ought to consider doing so.

and you're right, I could apply the same logic to afghanistan. there are some differences: one, they rose up, with our help, against the Taliban, something the iraqis (with the exception of the Kurds) did not do against Hussein, and two, the Afghans are working to build a stable society, they're not hiding behind our soldiers. while I don't like nation building, I mind it somewhat less when the people have their act together, something the Afghans have done and the Iraqis haven't.

matt: you, and powell, are wrong. we are under no obligation whatsoever to fix Iraq.

Then I presume you believe we should also pull out of Kosovo rather than stick around and "fix it" by waiting for a reliable gov to be setup.

mantis is repeating what I have said weeks ago. The only missing element are the death squads. When we pull back the death squads will pull up and unleash holy hell on AQ.

SS:

something the iraqis (with the exception of the Kurds) did not do against Hussein

Tell that to the Kurds and Marsh Arabs that Bush I left swinging in the wind after promising to support their fight against Saddam.

That wrong needs to be corrected also.

GRUBBLE:

mantis is repeating what I have said weeks ago. The only missing element are the death squads. When we pull back the death squads will pull up and unleash holy hell on AQ.

And what makes you believe the Sunnies will be spared? Or the Kurds?

marc: yes, not only would I have never gotten involved in the intramural fight of Kosovo, I wouldn't keep our troops there. It's not our responsibility to be the world's policemen. And for anybody who wants to know, no, we shouldn't send our troops into Darfur. what is going on is sad, but that's just too bad.

The following was lifted from Think Progress:

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: So it's not as if there is a date, at six months we'll know and then we have to do something dramatic. [Time Magazine, 1/12/07]

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I think we ought to give him and the president the benefit of the doubt, give them six months and see if it can be controlled. [Fox News, 1/12/07]

BILL O'REILLY: We can't force these people to stop killing each other. They're either going to do it or they're not, but now they know. Now they know. They've got six months and that's it. [The O'Reilly Factor, 1/24/07]

Hey! Six months are just about over based on each of those quotes, so I am sure they will all call on the President to change course.

That would be nice, but we already know that Bush does not have a plan "B". He said so.

I have asked the all knowing liberals on another thread to answer this: If the insurgents want us out, and it is known that when the violence lessens to an exceptable rate the US will pull out, why do the insurgents just wait? Hmmm? I know. Conservatives know. Do you??? ww

mantis is repeating what I have said weeks ago. The only missing element are the death squads. When we pull back the death squads will pull up and unleash holy hell on AQ.

And the general population as a whole, too! Wheeeeeee!

SS:

And for anybody who wants to know, no, we shouldn't send our troops into Darfur. what is going on is sad, but that's just too bad.

I agree, but tell that to Sen Biden, that idiot wants to leave Iraq for the Sudan.

And he has the unmitigated gaul to call Bush "brain dead!"

"If the insurgents want us out, and it is known that when the violence lessens to an exceptable (sic) rate the US will pull out, why do the insurgents just wait?"

Is it because Coalition forces are the ones mostly responsible for the violence?

CKIA:

Is it because Coalition forces are the ones mostly responsible for the violence?

Good thing there is a ? mark at the end of that, otherwise I'd request proof of that lunacy.

"It sounds like the republicans are cutting and running. What a bunch of cowards. How can you people keep supporting them?"

Don't worry. We won't be supporting the ones that choose surrender in Iraq, kinda like the Republicans who were for the amnesty bill lost much of their conservative support.

Those wobbly Republicans probably believe the hype that the recent poll numbers are about Iraq and not their recent immigration fiasco.

What progress? You can say "it's better in Ramadi" or "they've turned against Al Queda", but the number of dead and wounded (Iraqi civilian and U.S. soldiers) keeps rising. I'm not sure what "progress" we are talking about, but it is clear that the Administration badly mismanged the post-invasion.

Maybe we should just move out and let the Sunnis and the Shiia go at it for the next 10, 20 or 30 years.....

I'm not ready to throw in the towel yet, but we need something more than a little "surge".

Don't worry. We won't be supporting the ones that choose surrender in Iraq, kinda like the Republicans who were for the amnesty bill lost much of their conservative support.

Exactly...go back up to Lori's post and read the Scott Johnson link. He said it best.

I'm sorry, it should read : Why DON'T the insurgents just wait for us to leave? ww

No water, no electricity, no security, no dignity, no peace -- make 'em miserable until they sign the Oil Revenue Sharing Agreement.

but the number of dead and wounded (Iraqi civilian and U.S. soldiers) keeps rising. I'm not sure what "progress" we are talking about,

How many times has this been answered here? The number of dead and wounded increase as our forces and Iraqi forces increase the intensity of the fighting and kill more of the enemy. As a consequence, we have more casualties.

but Lt. Hegseth doesn't tell the whole story, does he?

Like we've won the war, every battle, but we are losing the occupation. Or that never in history has there been a successful occupation of an Arab country by a western power or that the only reason Israel is hanging on is because it got us and a few nukes.

Like the now friendly warlords in Anbar fighting AQ are Sunni and likely to turn on us as soon as we've helped them accomplish their goals.

Or that our allies, Turkey, has declared there will not be a Kurdish state on its border and is massing troops along the Turkey/Iraq border.

Or that regardless of how much extra blood and treasure we spend trying to buy the princes of the greenzone a bit of time, that to date they've made absolutely no substantive progress on actually forming a working country or finding a way to defend themselves.

What 1st Lt Pete Hegseth needs to do is abandon his part-time National Guard post and join the regular fighting Army, the folks who have made 3 or 4 deployments to Iraq and where company grade officers like Hegseth are leaving in droves and in extreme short supply. Let him fight and die for his beliefs like a real soldier, instead of standing on the sidelines writing articles.

BTW, Hegseth is a bit of ringer. Check out him and his organization at www.sourcewatch.org. Vets for Freedom is a completely GOP front organization and has no, as far as anyone can determine, any active duty military members (won't release a list of members, but donors and contributors are mostly chickenhawk republicans).