« Thursday's Business News | Main | It's Been a Busy Week »

More Iraq news that you won't see in the MSM

At least not prominently. No, it'll probably run somewhere around page A-16 or so in a little teeny, tiny column, where no one will see it unless they're really looking for it.

In the QUAGMIRE! that is Iraq according to Dems, deaths have been dropping. Citizens have been returning. Progress is being made, and victory is inevitable, if Democratic leaders will only let us achieve it.

A sign of our coming win in Iraq:

In the Iraq war, November has been one of the more deadly months for U.S. troops. However, this November has been the quietest since the U.S.-led coalition ousted Saddam Hussein in 2003.

With two days of the month remaining, the number of Americans killed this November in defense of Iraq's new democracy is 34. That's less than half the U.S. deaths of the previously least violent November.

Here's the record on post-invasion Novembers:

U.S. deaths in Iraq war:

November 2003: 82.
November 2004: 137.
November 2005: 84.
November 2006: 70.
November 2007: 34.


Of course, all you'll hear in the media and from the cut and run, cowardly, traitorous defeatocrats Democrats is how we "can't afford to stay in Iraq anymore", how the country is tired of war, how Iraqis don't want us there, blah blah blah blah blah.

Good news in Iraq = bad.
Bad news in Iraq = good.

For the Dems and the mainstream media, it's defeat at any cost. But no matter how hard they try to make us lose, we're still winning. The numbers don't lie.

Hat tip: Ace


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/25710.

Comments (46)

Can someone please point ou... (Below threshold)
nogo war:

Can someone please point out where the purpose of the surge was to reduce the deaths of our brave troops?
Wasn't it something about taking away the last excuse of the pretend Govt there to actually do something?
Every troop KIA, every troop WIA, every troop forced into multiple extended tours...every troop returning with PTSD, for what?

The only way to bring the number down to ZERO is to say our troops did EVERYTHING and MORE than was expected of them...we are leaving your future..up to You.

Those of you who support more troop and their family sacrifice for this bogus, corrupt, illusionary GOVT..let go..
It is not our failure, it is not our surrender.
It is THEIR failure, it is THEIR surrender.

I find it ironic that many here are against hand outs by our GOVT. I know many post about it is up to the individual to make choices.

Yet,you same folks say the Iraqi's are exempt from this 4 1/2 years after we provided them the opportunity...


I just dropped my son off a... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:

I just dropped my son off at the airport this morning in Knoxville for his return back to Afghanistan after 18 days of mid-tour leave.

Obviously I picked his brain based on his first hand observations on the ground while I had him home with me. He has spent most of his time outside the wire with the 82nd Airborne. He is not in the rear so he's out there and interacting. (Along with direct confrontations with the Taliban and providing them their divine wish)

My son is very astute coupled with keen observational awareness and tells me like it is, good or bad.

Bottom line is jihad has really lost its romantic appeal. Especially since its fought in the back yard of those that would be the most likely to support it.

Obviously the same can be said about Iraq.

Demanding a retreat in the face of victory is way, way worst than doing so when times are tougher. That is why now more than ever, any lefty or Democrat that thinks it would be in our interest to leave now is either a moron or a true-blue traitor.

No one hates a war more than a Blue-Star parent, probably more so than the soldier themselves because we do the hard worrying, but we must and we will win, so this can finally be over and we can go back to having a peace time military with limited deployments.

I noticed nogo commented too after I hit the refresh.

Here's the deal nogo.....jihad would have grown larger without us there. Now these people can see the consequences of that choice and it is much more unpleasant than having us there with the knowledge we are not staying. A Taliban victory or Al Qaeda victory means those people stay to govern. I don't expect a lefty to see it from the point of view of someone living there and making choices, being you would actually have to "think". But those are the facts; learn to live with victory even if it's not what you wanted. You know, to suit your political desires.

nogo:"Can some... (Below threshold)
marc:

nogo:

"Can someone please point out where the purpose of the surge was to reduce the deaths of our brave troops?
Wasn't it something about taking away the last excuse of the pretend Govt there to actually do something?"

Yes... yes... yes we know nogo, all you anti-Bush types have moved the goalposts, switched talking points from "we've lost in Iraq" and "it's a civil war WE can't win" to "the surge is a failure because no political reconciliation has occurred and the Iraqi Gov is a mess."

A couple simple questions even a simple mind can answer.

nogo, what came first in WW2, the defeat of Hitler and Germany or a reformation of Germany's politics and government?

What came first the defeat of Japan or the reformation of its feudal militaristic government?

I'll say one VERY positive ... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

I'll say one VERY positive about nogo's post: He/she/it is reducing their use of ellipses and forming actually sentences! (OK, just somewhat, but it's a start.)

The rest of he/she/its post is so much shifting of goalposts and hyperbolic gibberish. Par for the course.

all you anti-Bush types ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

all you anti-Bush types have moved the goalposts, switched talking points from "we've lost in Iraq" and "it's a civil war WE can't win" to "the surge is a failure because no political reconciliation has occurred and the Iraqi Gov is a mess."

They're the president's goalposts:

A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.

To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws, and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution.

America will change our approach to help the Iraqi government as it works to meet these benchmarks. In keeping with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, we will increase the embedding of American advisers in Iraqi Army units, and partner a coalition brigade with every Iraqi Army division. We will help the Iraqis build a larger and better-equipped army, and we will accelerate the training of Iraqi forces, which remains the essential U.S. security mission in Iraq. We will give our commanders and civilians greater flexibility to spend funds for economic assistance. We will double the number of provincial reconstruction teams. These teams bring together military and civilian experts to help local Iraqi communities pursue reconciliation, strengthen the moderates, and speed the transition to Iraqi self-reliance. And Secretary Rice will soon appoint a reconstruction coordinator in Baghdad to ensure better results for economic assistance being spent in Iraq.

See here for progress on those benchmarks.

The Iraqis better get their asses in gear. We are already on our way out.

Jumpinjoe: I spend about 50... (Below threshold)
Clay:

Jumpinjoe: I spend about 50% of my time traveling internationally. Two years ago I decided that whenever I saw a U.S. serviceperson in any airport in the world, I would stop whatever I was doing, offer my hand, look them in the eye and say "Thank you for your service". I sure hope I've been able to shake your son's hand. God bless you and him.

I would stop whate... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
I would stop whatever I was doing, offer my hand, look them in the eye and say "Thank you for your service". I sure hope I've been able to shake your son's hand. God bless you and him

Thanks Clay.

Evidently from viewing the comment scoring here on Wizbang, not everyone feels the way "we' do when thanking those that serve.

I wonder what part those people hate to hear; the part that someone is serving or the part that we are winning.

Cassy is a poignant example... (Below threshold)
Semanticleo:

Cassy is a poignant example of a simpletons' need for tidiness. BULLETIN-------------------------

This war needs a political solution and the Iraqis are not up to governance, (See Damascus in 1917)
nor are they likely to in the next century as many warned BEFORE this WH recklessly disregarded the consequences.

Cassy;

Hat Tip from Ace? You couldn't put together your stats on your own?

the Iraqis are not up to... (Below threshold)
Clay:

the Iraqis are not up to governance

My, how utterly and tragically racist of you. In your estimation, what exactly is the source of their inadequacy? Do Iraqis lack the intelligence to recognize the virtue of democracy? Is it their religion? What? I'd like a glimpse of what's in your small and bigoted mind.

Clay:#8 isn't racist... (Below threshold)

Clay:
#8 isn't racist. Liberals tell themselves they aren't racist. Instead, only conservatives are racist in their minds. But at least #8 uses slightly better grammar than nogo.

Oh, not so long ago we hear... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:

Oh, not so long ago we heard:

Senator Reid On Iraq: "This War Is Lost"

To this:

This war needs a political solution and the Iraqis are not up to governance

Of course right on cue, when benchmarks are met and troops are coming home in large numbers the last and final argument will be "we never should have done it in the first place".

Oh well, only a true lefty would complain about something they were never asked to participate in, never had to physically sacrifice for, and all the while during a humming economy they were able to partake in.

The only thing the lefties did during this whole GWOT was to give encouragement to the enemy.

All well, right? As long as it helps elect someone to office that tells you the less you work, the more they'll give you. A sweet deal in lefty land.

I too thank our service peo... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

I too thank our service people when I see them in uniform. They are always appreciative and it seems to start a copy cat where people who saw me do this say the same thing.

If the democrats of today had their way, Hitler would control Europe, Korea would be all on country ruled by communists.

The democrats won one war, Vietnam. Their side, the communists, won.

Now they again prove they are on the wrong side. Now they say Iraq's cannot govern. When I meet an Iraqi here in the states, they are very educated and well spoken.

I know we will win, because good always triumphs no matter how hard JFO and his ilk try. ww

Last I checked Iraqi is not... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Last I checked Iraqi is not a race, it's a nationality.

And he's right, the Iraqis don't seem up to peaceful self-governance, but that doesn't mean they are inherently incapable of it. They are capable, but at this point in time it seems extremely unlikely they will succeed.

The realities of that nation make it impossible for us, or anyone else, to force a democratic system of government on the Iraqis, and they seem unable to form a lasting one for themselves. Those realities are economic, political, and cultural. Ethnic strife, Arab pride, tribal loyalties, and long history of widespread corruption make the prospect of establishing liberal democracy extraordinarily difficult even for locals, let alone for a suspect foreign military force.

Look at South Korea. Despite a homogeneous population, a stated commitment to liberal democracy, and relative peace following the end of the Korean War, they went through six different governments of varying degrees of autocratic militarism before finally achieving a stable democracy almost 40 years later. The idea that that could be achieved in a few short years in a country with three hostile ethnic groups struggling over resources and ideology, longheld and bitter religious divisions, and rampant violence from the outset is just plain idiotic.

I really wish they could do it, but it would take a miracle, and counting on miracles only sets you up for failure and disappointment.

Look at South Kore... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
Look at South Korea......mantis

Iraq = Korea

Big news out of Iraq where, ignoring Congress and its withdrawal proposals in the interests of common sense, the Shiite-led Iraqi government and the Bush administration have inked a deal for an ongoing U.S. military presence and strategic partnership. To ward off foreign threats and internal coups, and keep a lid on sectraian rivalries.
This sets up a logical strategic arrangement, addressing vital U.S. and Iraqi interests, that illustrates how ridiculous withdrawal proposals have been, as they concentrated on abandonment without regard for any internal or external consequences. Particularly the Murthite "over the horizon" proposals. I'd suggest 50,000 U.S. troops in bases would have to have significant combat capability if they were to be prepared to carry out any of the roles outlined above. Sounds almost ... Korea-like. Maybe more like our 62-year arrangements with Germany and Japan. Watch and learn, as Iraq and the United States forge an opportunity not to repeat the wretched experience of Southeast Asia
Look at South Korea. Despit... (Below threshold)

Look at South Korea. Despite a homogeneous population, a stated commitment to liberal democracy, and relative peace following the end of the Korean War, they went through six different governments of varying degrees of autocratic militarism before finally achieving a stable democracy almost 40 years later.

So we should abandon Iraq now like we abandoned South Korea, letting the Chinese overrun them like so much road kill? ... Oh, wait...

Darn blockquote didn't work... (Below threshold)

Darn blockquote didn't work - first paragraph was from mantis (#13)

So we should aban... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
So we should abandon Iraq now like we abandoned South Korea, letting the Chinese overrun them like so much road kill? ... Oh, wait...

I thought the same thing when I read what mantis posted. But then we do live in a country where people yell at the microwave to "HURRY UP".

So you don't find the obvio... (Below threshold)
mantis:

So you don't find the obvious differences between Korea and Iraq to be problematic? Or is it just easier not to think about those?

Don't even get me started on the comparisons to Germany and Japan. Some of the more obvious things that those countries had at the time of occupation that are missing in Iraq:

Japan
- Total ethnic and national unity
- Formal surrender, i.e. legitimate occupation with endorsement from the Emperor
- Well formed plans for reconstruction in place long before the war was over
- Government structure intact
- Tradition of democracy and civil society
- Isolation from foreign (non-US) influence
- Strict control over sources of information by US occupation
- Little to no armed resistance
- No terrorism

Western Germany
- Ethnic and national unity
- Formal surrender, i.e. legitimate occupation
- Well formed plans for reconstruction in place long before the war was over
- Intact civil bureaucracy
- Tradition of liberal democracy and civil society
- Attractiveness of cooperation with Allied occupation relative to Soviets in the east
- Strict control over sources of information by occupation
- Little to no armed resistance
- No terrorism

And by the way, it would have been nice if the administration had been honest with us from the beginning that this would be another half-century (at least) long project in nation-building like South Korea.

Last I checked Iraqi is ... (Below threshold)
Clay:

Last I checked Iraqi is not a race, it's a nationality.

Well, of course you're right. But, 80% of Iraqi nationals are Arabic and 97% are Muslim.

But, I'm more interested in your other points, particularly your South Korea example. My question: Did anybody ever think the evolutionary march to democracy would be quick or easy? I think we've all thought this would be a long haul. Do we throw up our hands and say it's pointless because Arabs are not quick enough to get it?

mantis:"They'r... (Below threshold)
marc:

mantis:

"They're the president's goalposts:"

That's what you call a shift? From the WH statement in January? No nitwit, that's called one of the original goals that accompanied the surge of troops.

A very high percentage, in not all, of anti-Bush, anti-war comments during that time were all of the "war is lost" variety.

"Revisionist history" isn't one of your strongest point mantis, give it up.

I wouldn't be opposed to a ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I wouldn't be opposed to a Korean style nation-building occupation if it had a chance of working, but the reality is that when we draw down forces enough the violence will ratchet up again. Maybe not to 2006 levels due to the progress made against AQI, but it will increase because there is no political unity in the country and there are so many hostile armed groups it's ridiculous. We won't even get down to the stated goal of 50k before this occurs.

That's what you call a s... (Below threshold)
mantis:

That's what you call a shift? From the WH statement in January? No nitwit, that's called one of the original goals that accompanied the surge of troops.

Man are you stupid. I don't call that a shift. That those were the stated goals from the outset was my point. Pointing out that those goals have not been met is not "shifting the goalposts," as you claim, it is simply recognizing they haven't been reached.

I'm done responding to your idiotic attempts to play gotcha! Go find someone as dumb as you to debate. Try DU.

And by the way, it would... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

And by the way, it would have been nice if the administration had been honest with us from the beginning that this would be another half-century (at least) long project in nation-building like South Korea.

True, and I very much agree.

How-diddly-do-ever, try being that forthright with any population and you won't be able to sell them a glass of water even if thirsty, let alone a war.

Did anybody ever think t... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Did anybody ever think the evolutionary march to democracy would be quick or easy?

Well, Don Rumsfeld sure seemed to think so. But I don't really want to rehash how this war was sold from the beginning, my point is will this "long haul" actually be successful, or will we get stuck in another 2006 violence surge after we reduce troop levels.

How-diddly-do-ever, try ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

How-diddly-do-ever, try being that forthright with any population and you won't be able to sell them a glass of water even if thirsty, let alone a war.

You're probably right about that. And as far as I know Korea was not presented that way either, but rather as a defense against the tide of communism, the same way Iraq was part of the GWOT. I'm willing to concede the point, as in any case we can't unmake the war; what's more interesting to me is what happens next.

mantis:Man are... (Below threshold)
marc:

mantis:

Man are you stupid. I don't call that a shift. That those were the stated goals from the outset was my point. Pointing out that those goals have not been met is not "shifting the goalposts," as you claim, it is simply recognizing they haven't been reached.

Ah..huh, then you missed my POINT, not surprising given past performance. Despite your denials when almost exclusively the rhetoric tha dominated political discourse was "we lost" or "can't win" to the exclusion of any mention of Iraqi reconciliation as an original goal it is a shift in rhetoric due to the gains made recently.

And BTW, that was a question ("That's what you call a shift?") not an accusation you shifted anything.

Another point lost by someone who casually tosses out invective at the drop of the hat.

Not to worry, the cowardly ... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Not to worry, the cowardly democrats will lie in wait until the war is over (Vietnam), the troops have all returned home and then surrender. The slaughter of millions will not be their fault, it will be the fault of the war. That's the mental set of the retards on the left. Lose at all cost. How anyone can select someone with a 'D' after their name on a ballot is beyond me. I haven't done it since 1970. Maybe Harry/Nan and their lackies can come out with some forceful support for AQ and get the American soldiers Death rate back up.

my point is will this "l... (Below threshold)
Clay:

my point is will this "long haul" actually be successful, or will we get stuck in another 2006 violence surge after we reduce troop levels

Uh-huh, I know. But, be prepared to ask the same question in regard to Japan, Germany, South Korea, and anywhere else we have a military presence. Almost immediately you have to then ask how far down the isolationist road you want to travel, keeping in mind that it's not a linear road. I'm not advocating one way or another, I'm just saying that you're not making a simplistic point. And history has arguably repudiated an isolationist position.

Anyway. Carry on...

Despite your denials whe... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Despite your denials when almost exclusively the rhetoric tha dominated political discourse was "we lost" or "can't win" to the exclusion of any mention of Iraqi reconciliation as an original goal it is a shift in rhetoric due to the gains made recently.

So basically, since someone else said something else in the past no one can say anything different? A lot of us who opposed the Iraq War never thought we would have a problem winning militarily, we just thought we would be spending a great deal of money, time, and lives on a project that would ultimately fail for reasons that were not in our best interests. I've been saying from the beginning that the ethnic and political realities of Iraq would prevent us from succeeding in the democracy mission. I've also never pointed to coalition casualties as evidence of failure or weakness, as they have been very low by historical standards. We've never been losing this war, the Iraqis have been failing to form a new nation.

And BTW, that was a question ("That's what you call a shift?") not an accusation you shifted anything.

Yet you called me a nitwit for it in the very next sentence. Sounds like you had already passed judgment to me, question marks notwithstanding.

Another point lost by someone who casually tosses out invective at the drop of the hat.

Very amusing coming from you. Notice you're the only one that invective is directed at? Wonder why...

But, be prepared to ask ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

But, be prepared to ask the same question in regard to Japan, Germany, South Korea, and anywhere else we have a military presence.

I'm not talking about sometime in the distant future, and I'm not an isolationist. I'm saying that the levels of violence that we saw in Iraq in 2006 and 2007 before the surge will return, next year. There's no comparison with those other nations.

There's no comparison wi... (Below threshold)
Clay:

There's no comparison with those other nations.

Of course not. Not now. But...

It's actually 28 dead in co... (Below threshold)

It's actually 28 dead in combat this month, and 8 by non-hostile means [per the ICCC].

Remember not to count the non-hostile deaths because, statisticly, they would have most likely happened anyway. Copters crash, vehicles have accidents and people die of illness whether or not we're in Iraq.

i still wait...It is... (Below threshold)
nogo war:

i still wait...
It is up to Iraq NOW..
Not one more life should be given
Not one more injury should be given
Not one more extended tour should be given...
until
Their(not our)sacrifice is recognized by the current pretend Iraq GOVT.
You all want to continue to support a govt that treats the sacrifice of our troops and their families like dung...go ahead...
I still say...bring'em home..and treat them with respect they are not given over there..
...and you folks..who want More...more..more..
drop by your local V.A. Hospital...

Poor, retarded, easily led,... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Poor, retarded, easily led, stalinist shock morons of the left.

Another of your hero's see's the light....and all just in time to "calibrate" his position on Iraq in an election year.

From Redstate:

"Murtha finds military progress in trip to Iraq
Warns that Iraqis must do more for their own security
By Jerome L. Sherman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

WASHINGTON - U.S. Rep. John Murtha today said he saw signs of military progress during a brief trip to Iraq last week, but he warned that Iraqis need to play a larger role in providing their own security and the Bush administration still must develop an exit strategy.

"I think the 'surge' is working," the Democrat said in a videoconference from his Johnstown office, describing the president's decision to commit more than 20,000 additional combat troops this year. But the Iraqis "have got to take care of themselves."

Yes Congressman Murtha, and the best way to help them take care of themselves would be to immediately surrender and retreat to Okinawa, where we could easily engage the AQ enemy!!!

Remember lefties, 2197% of the American people absolutely support surrender, bringing the troops home now, and impeaching Bush, Cheney, Rove, their pets, and their first automobiles.

Don't Murtha's latest comments cement that belief in your minds?

Quick question for "nuanced... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Quick question for "nuanced" and "reality-based" lefties:

How can Democrat Murtha be right about the surge working when Democrat Reid said the surge could not work and that the war was already lost?

Reid's a total idiot, Murth... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Reid's a total idiot, Murtha is merely foolish.

How's that for nuance?

Btw the surge worked exactly as it was supposed to, it's stage two that's not going anywhere. We can't make the Iraqis get their shit together, unfortunately.

I finally figured it out!</... (Below threshold)

I finally figured it out!

I was traumatized for five years after 9/11, without realizing it. I was living in fear. Then I figured out I was just waiting for the other shoe to drop. I became calmer, more relaxed. I enjoyed life again.

I just figured it out! Democrats were MORE traumatized by the War On Terror In Iraq than they were by 9/11 itself!

I think for Democrats it's ... (Below threshold)
Eric:

I think for Democrats it's more about "drama" than "trauma".

mantis:Yet you... (Below threshold)
marc:

mantis:

Yet you called me a nitwit for it in the very next sentence. Sounds like you had already passed judgment to me, question marks notwithstanding.

With good reason. (see below)

Very amusing coming from you. Notice you're the only one that invective is directed at? Wonder why...

Just playing by the rules you set in a thread a couple days ago. A completely benign, civil discussion between us had you playing the "Moron Card" because you disagreed with a point I made.

How typical, you set YOUR rules, but my goodness.... let someone follow your lead and all hell breaks loose.

You don't like playing with a level playing field as defined by YOUR rules of discourse live with it shut up and quit using your sphincter muscle as a necklace.

I never set any rules, marc... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I never set any rules, marc. And try as you might to claim otherwise, it's quite clear what you were saying when you wrote this:

That's what you call a shift? From the WH statement in January? No nitwit, that's called one of the original goals that accompanied the surge of troops.

"But, oh mercy me, I was just asking questions. I never meant to say you were wrong!"

You're not fooling anyone. And that's one of the reasons, among many, I have no problem calling you what you are. I like a good debate, but you are never, ever interested in that. You're a toad. Get bent.

Mantis: "Btw the surge work... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Mantis: "Btw the surge worked exactly as it was supposed to, ..."

I suggest you proffer that observation over at WizbangBlue since nary a one of them nor the vast, vast majority of the Dem caucus in Congress agree with you.

So who is right, who is wrong, who is part of the "reality-based community"?

Mantis (on Reid Nd Murtha): "Reid's a total idiot, Murtha is merely foolish."

So which one is correct, the fool or the idiot? They hold contradictory positions.

Mantis: "it's stage two that's not going anywhere. We can't make the Iraqis get their shit together, unfortunately."

Hey everybody, remember the good old days when our efforts at the Iraqi national level meant nothing because at the grass roots level everything was just as bad as before?

Now of course, since the current strategy (which is having very significant success) is focused on improving conditions at the grass roots level in order to build national unity from the ground up is working, it's time for Mantis and gang to say "but wait, we haven't had enough progres at the national level!!"

Mantis et al, so predictable.

Drago:"Now of ... (Below threshold)
marc:

Drago:

"Now of course, since the current strategy (which is having very significant success) is focused on improving conditions at the grass roots level in order to build national unity from the ground up is working, it's time for Mantis and gang to say "but wait, we haven't had enough progres at the national level!!"

My point exactly from my first comment in this thread Drago.

mantis - "I'm done responding to your idiotic attempts to play gotcha! Go find someone as dumb as you to debate. Try DU."

You've responded at least twice since then.

So, what does that make you? Someone who can't keep a promise/commitment? (you have a future as a politician)

Or just a flat-out liar?

So which one is correct,... (Below threshold)
mantis:

So which one is correct, the fool or the idiot? They hold contradictory positions.

Well, currently Murtha is correct. He's foolish for other reasons.

Hey everybody, remember the good old days when our efforts at the Iraqi national level meant nothing because at the grass roots level everything was just as bad as before?

Our (or more importantly, the Iraqis') efforts at the national level have always been of utmost importance. Whoever said they weren't? You choose to ignore the benchmarks as laid out in the surge plan which were specifically pointed to as the purpose of the plan. Those benchmarks (security forces, oil law, constitutional amendment, de-baathification law, etc) are all things that have to happen on the national level, not a grassroots level.

Now of course, since the current strategy (which is having very significant success) is focused on improving conditions at the grass roots level in order to build national unity from the ground up is working, it's time for Mantis and gang to say "but wait, we haven't had enough progres at the national level!!"

This is such bullshit. The primary purpose of the surge, as laid out by the president, was to bring violence down so that political progress could move forward. A list of benchmarks for that political progress were defined, and none of them had anything to do with building national unity from the ground up (of course that's needed, but that is not "the current strategy").

You don't want to discuss the present political situation in Iraq or how that affects our continued involvement there (or how it will be affected as we draw down troop levels), because you have no answers, so instead you construct a bunch of strawmen about how some people other than me said this and that in the past, which is different than what I'm saying as if I can answer for every imaginary friend you have and every member of Congress, and as if it's inconsistent for me to say something different than someone else.

So you, like marc, are willing to ignore the reality of what is likely to happen in the next year or two in Iraq and are content to just wave your arms around.

mantis: "You don't want to ... (Below threshold)
Drago:

mantis: "You don't want to discuss the present political situation in Iraq...."

uh, from my post preceding post:

Drago: "Now of course, since the current strategy (which is having very significant success) is focused on improving conditions at the grass roots level in order to build national unity from the ground up is working, it's time for Mantis and gang to say "but wait, we haven't had enough progres at the national level!!""

Note to self: Offering opinions on what precisely is ocurring on the ground in Iraq at this time will be construed by the left as being unable or unwilling to discuss what is happening on the ground in Iraq today.

I guess I'll just go back to googling how fire can't melt steel.

It would be more productive.

uh, just to be sure it's cl... (Below threshold)
Drago:

uh, just to be sure it's clear mantis, the "present political situation in Iraq" is in flux at multiple levels. To pretend otherwise is sophistry, and easily detected as such.

And for the record, I'm getting a little tired of folks like mantis who keep insisting that "the surge" was about political reconciliation.

It wasn't. The surge was and is about exactly what what is ocurring on the ground: kicking the crap out of AQ, turning the tribes against AQ, and allowing for more stability.

Period.

This is already happening.

Political reconciliation on the national level is a completely different animal which is partially dependent (PARTIALLY DEPENDENT) upon a successful surge result.

Here's the kicker: the left wants to conflate the two (military surge and political reconciliation) so as to be able to claim the former failed if the latter does not come about. Think about it. They have to since they long ago claimed the surge was already a failure. Hillary told us that thinking otherwise required "a willful suspension of disbelief" (something she must be very very familiar with given her "relationship" with Bill).

The surge has already succeeded to a great extent.

Whether or not the powers that be in Iraq and the US can use that grass-roots stability to build the necessary larger national unity remains to be seen.

I'm more than happy to discuss that at anytime mantis, once you go and read a book or two about military strategy, history, or at least pay attention to what the actual objectives of the surge are. I said "objectives" of the "surge".

"Here's the kicker: the lef... (Below threshold)
Semanticleo:

"Here's the kicker: the left wants to conflate the two (military surge and political reconciliation) so as to be able to claim the former failed if the latter does not come about"

No, the conflation is performed by WingNut Nation
to sublimate the failure of Nation Building as though the invasion (duck soup made with dead ducks) and the surge were the signpost of success.

Kinda like the host who burns the entree, but declares the dinner party a success because the appetizer was delicious,




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy