Surge strategy

[Kaj]

Here's what the top officer in the US Army says:

[ QUOTE ]
The decrease in violence in Iraq caused by the infusion of 30,000 additional American troops is only "a temporary tactical effect," limited to those neighborhoods and streets where the troops are located, the Army's chief of staff said Monday.

Absent significant political reconciliation among Iraq's competing Sunni, Shia and Kurdish populations, the "surge" strategy is unlikely to have a broader influence on security in Iraq, said Army Gen. George W. Casey, at a breakfast in Washington hosted by Government Executive.

-------------
GovExec.com
September 6, 2007

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe the top Army officer just hates America or has a below-H.S. education.

Oh, and Bush's take (as he said while visiting Iraq this week):

[ QUOTE ]
"if the security situation continues to improve the way it has, we may be able to achieve the same objectives with fewer troops."

[/ QUOTE ]

[Kaj]

More opinion, just to get you ready for the big "Petreaus report" coming on Monday...

[ QUOTE ]
Here’s what will definitely happen when Gen. David Petraeus testifies before Congress next week: he’ll assert that the surge has reduced violence in Iraq — as long as you don’t count Sunnis killed by Sunnis, Shiites killed by Shiites, Iraqis killed by car bombs and people shot in the front of the head.

Here’s what I’m afraid will happen: Democrats will look at Gen. Petraeus’s uniform and medals and fall into their usual cringe. They won’t ask hard questions out of fear that someone might accuse them of attacking the military. After the testimony, they’ll desperately try to get Republicans to agree to a resolution that politely asks President Bush to maybe, possibly, withdraw some troops, if he feels like it.

There are five things I hope Democrats in Congress will remember.

First, no independent assessment has concluded that violence in Iraq is down. On the contrary, estimates based on morgue, hospital and police records suggest that the daily number of civilian deaths is almost twice its average pace from last year. And a recent assessment by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office found no decline in the average number of daily attacks.

So how can the military be claiming otherwise? Apparently, the Pentagon has a double super secret formula that it uses to distinguish sectarian killings (bad) from other deaths (not important); according to press reports, all deaths from car bombs are excluded, and one intelligence analyst told The Washington Post that “if a bullet went through the back of the head, it’s sectarian. If it went through the front, it’s criminal.” So the number of dead is down, as long as you only count certain kinds of dead people...

--------
New York Times
September 7, 2007

[/ QUOTE ]

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
....Maybe the top Army officer just hates America or has a below-H.S. education. ....

[/ QUOTE ]

Or maybe it's because Bush fired Casey and replaced him with Patreaus. Time will tell.

[tomdemaine]

Kaj,

Who are you trying to convince with these posts? The number of pro bush posters on this forum must be a pretty small % and the number of pro surge posters a miniscule subset thereof. I love a good politician bashing as much as the next guy but I think we can take it as read that bush is corrupt/incompetent/both. Not that you have to stop posting just cos of what I think but here's my 2c. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
....Maybe the top Army officer just hates America or has a below-H.S. education. ....

[/ QUOTE ]

Or maybe it's because Bush fired Casey and replaced him with Patreaus. Time will tell.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, he is the Army Chief of Staff -- hardly a position one would be in if they were harboring a grudge. And if so, then Bush is pretty foolish to select him to be the Army's top uniformed officer and a member of the Joint Chiefs.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
Kaj,

Who are you trying to convince with these posts? The number of pro bush posters on this forum must be a pretty small % and the number of pro surge posters a miniscule subset thereof. I love a good politician bashing as much as the next guy but I think we can take it as read that bush is corrupt/incompetent/both. Not that you have to stop posting just cos of what I think but here's my 2c. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]


Why do I have to convince anyone of anything? I read a lot of stories on this forum that I otherwise wouldn't dig up myself, and suppose others do as well. Just sharing information. I assume there are some people on the fence with their beliefs who more independent information is of value -- I'm sure the administration blitz will be on next week to present the "new strategy" as a success so far.

And based on active posters, I disagree with your assessment of the number of pro-Bush posters.

[qwnu]

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
....Maybe the top Army officer just hates America or has a below-H.S. education. ....

[/ QUOTE ]

Or maybe it's because Bush fired Casey and replaced him with Patreaus. Time will tell.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, he is the Army Chief of Staff -- hardly a position one would be in if they were harboring a grudge. And if so, then Bush is pretty foolish to select him to be the Army's top uniformed officer and a member of the Joint Chiefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

So now you're saying Bush isn't a foolish guy, ok.

[tomdemaine]

OK no problem I just much prefer your more abstract posts. I think the AS position (am I close enough to describing you?) is a pretty fascinating one. I'm in the works in small groups but not in large ones camp but I'm waiting to be convinced. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
OK no problem I just much prefer your more abstract posts. I think the AS position (am I close enough to describing you?) is a pretty fascinating one. I'm in the works in small groups but not in large ones camp but I'm waiting to be convinced. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Hijack, but link