While I am not a "fan" of the war in Iraq... I think this fellow deserves some praise (and not a shitty ad in the NYT).

Our politicians may be full of crap, but we still have some damn fine warriors here.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=AA4OSBQXNV5A3QFIQMFCFFWAVCBQ YIV0?xml=/news/2007/12/30/nperson130.xml

The media is avoiding Petreus because his successful strategy in Iraq belies some of our accepted mythology.

Some people on these fora invoke former generals who call the war unwinnable or a quagmire. What Petreus shows is that the war was an unwinnable quagmire when their strategy was employed. It's difficult to find these formerly verbose generals these days.

Another funny thing about this is that the Democrats aren't taking credit where they deserve to. Several years ago, they claimed that the administration wasn't sending enough troops to Iraq. Hillary called it "war on the cheap".

Well, they turned out to be one hundred percent correct. The surge has reduced military and civilian casualties, made areas safer and helped to build up the Iraqi police and military. So why aren't the Democrats taking credit for being right?

Because to do so would acknowledge the success our military is having, and the entire Democrat strategy is built on the perception of failure in Iraq.

Ya know its sad and very negative to suggest that a man who earns his living thru war is put forward as 'Person of the Year'.

That said, once again some cheap political point scoring here.

The 'surge', which is, as claimed, so successful, cannot be kept in place indefinitely.

Thus as it continues, how can the real value of it be judged.
I said quite sometime ago that the US needs to re train and re build Iraqs
military and Police, a grave error on the Pentagons side to disband them
in the first place.

Its a bit ironic, giving praise to Republican thinking on any Iraqi success,
after all, it was their misguided judgement to invade in the first place.

Still no sign of those stealth WMDs-hid in Syria.

The 'surge', which is, as claimed, so successful, cannot be kept in place indefinitely.

and it's not-there are 30k troops scheduled to come home soon.


Its a bit ironic, giving praise to Republican thinking on any Iraqi success,
after all, it was their misguided judgement to invade in the first place.

Still no sign of those stealth WMDs-hid in Syria.

the only person on the planet that didn't think Saddam had WMDs was Saddam. before he hanged, he disclosed to his interrogators that it was a shell game to make his neighbors...and the Kurds and Shiites think he had them. looks like that worked out great for him:thumbs:

Ya know its sad and very negative to suggest that a man who earns his living thru war is put forward as 'Person of the Year'.

That said, once again some cheap political point scoring here.

The 'surge', which is, as claimed, so successful, cannot be kept in place indefinitely.

Thus as it continues, how can the real value of it be judged.
I said quite sometime ago that the US needs to re train and re build Iraqs
military and Police, a grave error on the Pentagons side to disband them
in the first place.

Its a bit ironic, giving praise to Republican thinking on any Iraqi success,
after all, it was their misguided judgement to invade in the first place.

Still no sign of those stealth WMDs-hid in Syria.

Success just doesn't sit well for you, does it?

1. The 'surge', which is, as claimed, so successful, cannot be kept in place indefinitely.
2. Thus as it continues, how can the real value of it be judged.
3. I said quite sometime ago that the US needs to re train and re build Iraqs
military and Police...
4. Its a bit ironic, giving praise to Republican thinking on any Iraqi success...
5. Still no sign of those stealth WMDs-hid in Syria.
1. No one's saying it can.
2. By the fact, again, that casualties are down in every category except insurgents. The success is in the fact that more police and soldiers ARE being trained while the surge is stabilizing things somewhat.
As far as judging it too quickly, some criticism should be leveled at Harry Reid who deemed it a failure on it's fifth day. That story kind of died, didn't it.
3. Everyone is saying that and that's why it's happening.
4. Who did that?
5. We should also take that up with the prior administration and the most recent Democrat presidential candidate who forcefully made the claim that they existed. Was everyone wrong?

'Was everyone wrong'-in a word 'Yes'.

Dont forget this was all happening at a time when there was a direct threat
to the United States from Muslim extremeists, this sideshow called Iraq, should have been left on, what you guys call 'the back burner', until AQ was
neutralised.

The media is avoiding Petreus because his successful strategy in Iraq belies some of our accepted mythology.

Petreus is just a politicial hack.
What was it his former boss called him? "An ass kissing piece of crap", or something like that.


Some people on these fora invoke former generals who call the war unwinnable or a quagmire. What Petreus shows is that the war was an unwinnable quagmire when their strategy was employed. It's difficult to find these formerly verbose generals these days.

The OCCUPATION is still a quagmire and we won the "War" (such as it was) years ago.


Another funny thing about this is that the Democrats aren't taking credit where they deserve to.

Sure they are, you just are not giving them the credit they deserve.


Several years ago, they claimed that the administration wasn't sending enough troops to Iraq. Hillary called it "war on the cheap".

That was true... several years ago.
The escalation in Iraq is much too little, much too late.


Well, they turned out to be one hundred percent correct.

Of course.

The surge has reduced military and civilian casualties, made areas safer and helped to build up the Iraqi police and military.

2007 is U.S. Troops Deadliest Year in Iraq (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/30/iraq/main3657732.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3657732)
Sorry to let a little thing like facts get in the way of your nice sounding fantasy.

Two critical shifts that boosted U.S.-led forces in 2007 - a self-imposed cease-fire by a main Shiite militia and a grassroots Sunni revolt against extremists - could still unravel unless serious unity efforts are made by the Iraqi government.

Nope... no mention of the tiny little escalation, what you call a "surge"...

Petreus is just a politicial hack.
What was it his former boss called him? "An ass kissing piece of crap", or something like that.
Barring evidence to the contrary i'm going to assume that giving petraeus credit for being right is too much for the critics because it would mean they were wrong.



The OCCUPATION is still a quagmire and we won the "War" (such as it was) years ago.

by what definition?



Sure they are, you just are not giving them the credit they deserve.
PErhaps you could point out where they've taken credit.



That was true... several years ago.
The escalation in Iraq is much too little, much too late.

Many chapters remain to be written. One would have thought you guys would have learned that by now.





2007 is U.S. Troops Deadliest Year in Iraq (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/30/iraq/main3657732.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3657732)
Sorry to let a little thing like facts get in the way of your nice sounding fantasy.

There's a classic case of figuring.

Success just doesn't sit well for you, does it?
Yeah it does, its just a pity that a military man is viewed as 'man of the year'.

Because a military man helps bring peace to a country?

You prefer the violence?

1. Petreus is just a politicial hack.
2. Sure they are, you just are not giving them the credit they deserve.
3. "2007 is U.S. Troops Deadliest Year in Iraq"
Sorry to let a little thing like facts get in the way of your nice sounding fantasy.

1. In that case then a "political hack" was able to come up with a strategy that is succeeding when all the former generals, whom the left loves to quote, couldn't do it.

2. To the contrary. I am crediting the Democrats with being right when they said that we needed more troops over there. They were right and the statistics bear this out.
What puzzles me is that they are not taking credit for it.
The reason is simple: their entire political future is dependent on the perception of failure in Iraq. To acknowledge that their idea was correct would be to acknowledge the current success.

3. I don't think you're being disingenuous, I just think you're only as good as the information that's available to you.
Yes, 2007 was the deadliest year, but, unlike the way the article presented it, look at it month by month:
Dec-06 112
Jan-07 83
Feb-07 81
Mar-07 81
Apr-07 104
May-07 126
Jun-07 101
Jul-07 78
Aug-07 84
Sep-07 65
Oct-07 38
Nov-07 37
Dec-07 23
Jan-08 11
This is what the surge has done.
Here's something else from your article:
"Iraqi civilian deaths also peaked in May with 2,155 killed. That fell to 718 in November and 710 in December."

When you look at how insanely bad the beginning of 2007 was it makes the results of the surge even more impressive.

Because a military man helps bring peace to a country?

You prefer the violence?
Military solve military problems, as I seen here, they cant solve political ones.

Military solve military problems, as I seen here, they cant solve political ones.
He can still be man of the year for solving military problems... The Man of the Year doesn't have to be political.

He can still be man of the year for solving military problems... The Man of the Year doesn't have to be political.
Yes Id agree with that, but Iraq is dragging on a long time, and the General

has concentrated his efforts in and around Baghdad.

Bringing in the help of local factions will be a major mistake in the long run.

the only person on the planet that didn't think Saddam had WMDs was Saddam.

Bullshit.

I can assure you that many, many people around the world including myself heard the --""Saddam has tons of WMDs!"-- claim and seriously doubted it, given that it was so painfully obvious that B*sh and company were desperate to come up with some excuse to get a war started in Iraq.

Maybe if the Conservafascists in the current administration hadn't revealed before the 9/11 attacks even occurred that they had every intention of attacking Iraq their lies would not have been so transparent.

Bullshit.

I can assure you that many, many people around the world including myself heard the --""Saddam has tons of WMDs!"-- claim and seriously doubted it, given that it was so painfully obvious that B*sh and company were desperate to come up with some excuse to get a war started in Iraq.

Maybe if the Conservafascists in the current administration hadn't revealed before the 9/11 attacks even occurred that they had every intention of attacking Iraq their lies would not have been so transparent.
would that include the Conservafascists in the previous administration?:rolleyes:

Military solve military problems, as I seen here, they cant solve political ones.

Sure they can. To paraphrase von clausewitz, War is merely the continuation of politics by other means.

Yes Id agree with that, but Iraq is dragging on a long time, and the General

has concentrated his efforts in and around Baghdad.

Bringing in the help of local factions will be a major mistake in the long run.

Remind us how long it took the irish to build a civil society. Bet it's a lot longer than it's taking the iraqis.

Remind us how long it took the irish to build a civil society. Bet it's a lot longer than it's taking the iraqis.
Totally different location,history,political situation,in fact,theres very little to compare both situations,except death and division.

Yes Id agree with that, but Iraq is dragging on a long time, and the General

has concentrated his efforts in and around Baghdad.

Bringing in the help of local factions will be a major mistake in the long run.

Maybe you can pick up the phone and give the general a few pointers on how he can better proceed with his job?

Totally different location,history,political situation,in fact,theres very little to compare both situations,except death and division.

So what is the appropriate time frame? What is the basis for your conclusion as to what the appropriate time frame is?

Maybe you can pick up the phone and give the general a few pointers on how he can better proceed with his job?
Maybe I could, tho Id have to tell him there is no military solution to Iraqs woes.

So what is the appropriate time frame? What is the basis for your conclusion as to what the appropriate time frame is?
The appropriate time frame for what exactly, the surge ?

The surge will ultimately reduce deaths to what is called, 'an acceptable level'

which will allow the Administration to pull troops out, that wont be the fix for Iraq tho.

would that include the Conservafascists in the previous administration?

Yes.

1. In that case then a "political hack" was able to come up with a strategy that is succeeding when all the former generals, whom the left loves to quote, couldn't do it.

How do you figure he is "succeeding"?
Allow me to repeat this paragraph you might have missed before.

Two critical shifts that boosted U.S.-led forces in 2007 - a self-imposed cease-fire by a main Shiite militia and a grassroots Sunni revolt against extremists - could still unravel unless serious unity efforts are made by the Iraqi government.

I don't see what you are giving General Petrayus credit for. What is he doing about the needed political solution? As I recall, the Iraqi PM asked Gen Petrayus to leave Iraq earlier this year because he was defending the private contractors like Blackwater and Aegis who have been going on killing sprees.


To the contrary. I am crediting the Democrats with being right when they said that we needed more troops over there. They were right and the statistics bear this out.

Yes. They WERE right, in that we NEEDED more troops when we invaded. It is now 5+ years later. A little too late to be taking advice from before the invasion.


What puzzles me is that they are not taking credit for it.

Take credit for what, exactly?


The reason is simple: their entire political future is dependent on the perception of failure in Iraq.

What are you talking about? We WON in Iraq years ago. Saddam was removed from power, we occupied their country and instituted a new government. We "won". Unfortunately the aftermath was so poorly managed and privatization failed so utterly, that Iraq now looks like failure. It hasn't been about "winning" or "losing" for quite a while. That is just meaningless rhetoric.



What success? Are you talking about this again?

[QUOTE]Two critical shifts that boosted U.S.-led forces in 2007 - a self-imposed cease-fire by a main Shiite militia and a grassroots Sunni revolt against extremists - could still unravel unless serious unity efforts are made by the Iraqi government.


3. I don't think you're being disingenuous,

Thanks, I appreciate that.

Yes, 2007 was the deadliest year...

...For US troops.
Yes, I know. Thank you for admitting it.

This is what the surge has done.

The "surge" is ultimately nothing more than meaningless rhetoric to placate a public who has known for a long time that this misadventure in Iraq was a huge mistake that we were, at best, blundered into and at worst, purposely misled into.

We won the "war" a long time ago, but the handling of the aftermath has been a massive failure.

Trying to pretend that there is still a "war" to "win" is absurd.

The appropriate time frame for what exactly, the surge ?

The surge will ultimately reduce deaths to what is called, 'an acceptable level'

which will allow the Administration to pull troops out, that wont be the fix for Iraq tho.

We were talking about building a civil society weren't we.

How do you figure he is "succeeding"?
Allow me to repeat this paragraph you might have missed before.



I don't see what you are giving General Petrayus credit for. What is he doing about the needed political solution? As I recall, the Iraqi PM asked Gen Petrayus to leave Iraq earlier this year because he was defending the private contractors like Blackwater and Aegis who have been going on killing sprees.




Yes. They WERE right, in that we NEEDED more troops when we invaded. It is now 5+ years later. A little too late to be taking advice from before the invasion.




Take credit for what, exactly?



What are you talking about? We WON in Iraq years ago. Saddam was removed from power, we occupied their country and instituted a new government. We "won". Unfortunately the aftermath was so poorly managed and privatization failed so utterly, that Iraq now looks like failure. It hasn't been about "winning" or "losing" for quite a while. That is just meaningless rhetoric.



What success? Are you talking about this again?





Thanks, I appreciate that.



...For US troops.
Yes, I know. Thank you for admitting it.



The "surge" is ultimately nothing more than meaningless rhetoric to placate a public who has known for a long time that this misadventure in Iraq was a huge mistake that we were, at best, blundered into and at worst, purposely misled into.

We won the "war" a long time ago, but the handling of the aftermath has been a massive failure.

Trying to pretend that there is still a "war" to "win" is absurd.

It's this type of analytical drivel that creates concern. Only the blind, the partisan and Harry Reid would declare there has been no progress. Hell even the Washington Post is admonishing democrats for not acknowledging it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/07/AR2008010702632.html?nav=rss_opinions
Now it's indisputable that the surge has drastically reduced violence. Attacks have fallen by more than 60 percent, al-Qaeda has been dealt a major blow, and the threat of sectarian civil war that seemed imminent a year ago has receded. The monthly total of U.S. fatalities in December was the second-lowest of the war.

A reasonable response to these facts might involve an acknowledgment of the remarkable military progress, coupled with a reminder that the final goal of the surge set out by President Bush -- political accords among Iraq's competing factions -- has not been reached. (That happens to be our reaction to a campaign that we greeted with skepticism a year ago.) It also would involve a willingness by the candidates to reconsider their long-standing plans to carry out a rapid withdrawal of remaining U.S. forces in Iraq as soon as they become president -- a step that would almost certainly reverse the progress that has been made.

As to the arguement that they haven't met our political goals it's an unusual assertion. In their own way the iraqis have achieved most of the goals. They are sharing the oil revenue among the provinces, former baathists are getting jobs in the gov't....

Only the blind, the partisan and Harry Reid would declare there has been no progress.

Has there been a small amount of progress on the military front? Yes.
Has there been progress on political reconciliation? No.

So long as there is no politcial reconciliation in Iraq the "surge" is and always will be a failure.

Has there been a small amount of progress on the military front? Yes.
Has there been progress on political reconciliation? No.

So long as there is no politcial reconciliation in Iraq the "surge" is and always will be a failure.

Political reconciliation as measured by western standards. The iraqis are chieving results in their own fashion.

Have they passed a law that describes when where and how the oil revenue will be shared? NO. Are they sharing the oil revenue? Yes. Have they passed a law allowing ex-baathists to work in the gov't? No. Are ex-baathists being hired to work in the gov't? Yes. Have they passed a law mandating the time place and format of local elections? No. Have local elections been held and leaders chosen? Yes.

Your viewing lens is too myopic.

...For US troops.
Yes, I know. Thank you for admitting it.

The "surge" is ultimately nothing more than meaningless rhetoric to placate a public who has known for a long time that this misadventure in Iraq was a huge mistake that we were, at best, blundered into and at worst, purposely misled into.
.Nice job taking a large chunk out of the middle of my post when you quote my point, namely the statistics.

2007 was the deadliest year, but you conveniently ignore the fact that it was based on the first part of the year before the surge kicked in. Then military deaths went from 106 per month to 40 per month.
Similarly, civilian deaths went from 2,155 killed in May to 710 in December.

If you're going to use the phrase "deadliest year", tell the whole story, not just the AirAmerica catch phrases.

Nice job taking a large chunk out of the middle of my post when you quote my point, namely the statistics.

Thanks!
Did you need to see it again or something?
You could always look in your original post you know.


2007 was the deadliest year,

Again, I know. Thanks for admitting that.


but you conveniently ignore the fact that it was based on the first part of the year before the surge kicked in.

That only goes to show how bad it has gotten over there that halfway through the year they cut the death toll but it STILL turned about to be the deadliest year anyway.

Political reconciliation as measured by western standards.

Yes, "western" standards like "Are they killing each other?"
How crazy that must sound to those wacky Iraqis. :rolleyes:

What an asshole...:rolleyes:

Compared to you Prat, I am all sweetness and light.

:thumbs:

You forgot rimjob.