The Surge Is Flopping

The NYTimes reports:

Three months after the start of the Baghdad security plan that has added thousands of American and Iraqi troops to the capital, they control fewer than one-third of the city’s neighborhoods, far short of the initial goal for the operation, according to some commanders and an internal military assessment.

. . . In an interview, [General Vincent Brooks] said that while military planners had expected to make greater gains by now, that has not been possible in large part because Iraqi police and army units, which were expected to handle basic security tasks, like manning checkpoints and conducting patrols, have not provided all the forces promised, and in some cases have performed poorly.

Who'da thunk it? Plan B anyone?

< Eric Alterman Released After Arrest in Debate Spin Room | The Snitch in the JFK Terror Case >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Deaths from IEDs have risen (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 11:43:45 PM EST
    precipitously since the implementation of the surge.  

    Surging? (none / 0) (#25)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 10:15:33 AM EST
    16 US Soldiers Die in Iraq in the First Three Days of June
    A total of 127 American troops died in May, the third worst total for U.S. forces since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Fourteen of the latest deaths were reported on Sunday alone by the U.S. military

    Don't be silly (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Al on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 12:24:55 AM EST
    The event itself is significant because it looks like the U.S. is making some breakthrough in terms of establishing consensus with the Sunni population

    Here's another quote from Al Sadr:

    "To our Iraqi Sunni brothers, I say that the occupation sows dissension among us and that strength is unity and division is weakness," he said. "I'm ready to cooperate with them in all fields."

    Who do you think the Sunnis will have to deal with when the Americans are gone?

    Al (1.00 / 1) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 11:41:48 AM EST
    You appear to be assuming that al-Sadr won't be dealt with before we leave.

    The Herald (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 04:29:58 AM EST
    Monday June 04
    The toll from the booby-trap devices rose from 35% of all American fatalities in January to 80% last month, despite an outlay of more than £2.5bn on countermeasures since 2003.

    Now commanders are questioning the effectiveness of spending huge sums on electronic jammers, extra vehicle armour and research teams while their soldiers continue to die in ever larger numbers.

    A total of 127 died in May, the third worst total for US forces since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The previous most lethal months were April and November, 2004, when 135 and 137 soldiers died in large-scale offensives in Falluja.

    One officer told the Herald: "The instinctive US response is always to look for a technological solution. The only things which will solve this are better intelligence targeting the guys who design and lay the bombs and winning the support of the locals to undermine the insurgents' power base."

    The Pentagon, which admits that "improvised explosive devices" - IEDs - are its single biggest problem, said it intended to spend another £2bn this year to fund experimental countermeasures.
    Rescue missions by road and helicopter to bomb attack sites are themselves coming under carefully-planned attacks.

    The tactics mimic those used by the IRA against British troops in Northern Ireland, where a second booby-trap was often laid after a first had gone off to catch troops sealing off the area in what became known as a "come-on" ambush.

    Who, exactly, is doing the 'surging'? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 10:00:57 AM EST
    In Iraq:
    ...(80%) say they want foreign forces to leave within a year (72% of Shias in the rest of the country), according to a poll conducted by World Public Opinion in September. None of the Shias polled in Baghdad want U.S.-led troops to be reduced only "as the security situation improves," a sharp decline from January, when 57 percent of the Shias polled by WPO in the capital city preferred an open-ended U.S presence.

    This brings Baghdad Shias in line with the rest of the country. Seven out of ten Iraqis overall--including both the Shia majority (74%) and the Sunni minority (91%)--say they want the United States to leave within a year.
    "What's most troubling is that the United States is not only seen in a negative light but as an enemy," ... "When asked to name the two countries that pose the greatest threat, the vast majority, about 80 percent, name the United States and Israel."

    --- The WPO Poll was taken in September 2006. The situation has only deteriorated since.

    On April 08, 2007:

    al-Sadr urged the Iraqi army and police to stop cooperating with the United States and told his guerrilla fighters to concentrate on pushing American forces out of the country, according to a statement issued Sunday. The statement, stamped with al-Sadr's official seal, was distributed in the Shiite holy city of Najaf on Sunday -- a day before a large demonstration there, called for by al-Sadr, to mark the fourth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad. "You, the Iraqi army and police forces, don't walk alongside the occupiers, because they are your archenemy," the statement said.
    Up till April this year al-Sadr had been telling his people to restrain from open battle with US Troops.

    Iraqis will never quit. Iraqis want exactly what most Americans want... they want their own country - without a foreign occupying army. They don't want 'help' from US Troops - they want them gone, or dead.

    They also want the Iraq puppet government gone, or dead:

    "More than half the MPs, ministers and senior officials are on vacation, sick leave or on official assignment abroad (at any given time)," a government official told IPS on condition of anonymity. "It is common practice now that they spend more time abroad than in their offices. The main reason is their fear of being targeted inside the country "... Over the past year, an increasing number of Iraqis have begun to see the Iraqi government as no more than pawns of the United States: International Press Service

    Let's get something straight ~ there is no effective Iraqi government. Most of its leaders, including President Talabani, have garnered their loot and are heading for far away places knowing that they are marked men outside the protection of the infamous Green Zone ~ which is becoming increasingly vulnerable.

    With up to 20 to 30 Rocket attacks daily in the Green Zone ~ the handwriting is on the wall ~ despite Bush's face saving Surge, the country is doomed and " Iraq appears to have gone back to a time when tribal leaders and clerics were the only powers that could solve some of their problems."

    Here is Dahr Jamail's latest dispatch from Ali al-Fadhily, embedded in Baghdad, who lays waste to the Cheney/Bush current spin of a unified and functioning Iraqi government.

    surgin (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Sailor on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 10:16:17 AM EST
    The President's New Iraq Strategy Is Rooted In Six Fundamental Elements:
    Let the Iraqis lead;

    Q Secretary Gates, how long do you expect to maintain the surge in Iraq? And what happens if the Iraqis do not live up to their commitments?

    SECRETARY GATES: Well, as I indicated, we're going to know pretty early on whether the Iraqis are meeting their military commitments [...]
    I think that what we will see over time is a lessening of violence in Baghdad. If this strategy is successful, over time we will see a lessening of violence in Baghdad.
    It's going to take a little time, and we will probably have a better view a couple of months from now in terms of whether we are making headway in terms of getting better control of Baghdad, with the Iraqis in the lead and with the Iraqis beginning to make better progress on the reconciliation process.

    Q My other question is, yesterday Major General Bill Caldwell, who is the spokesman for the multinational force, said on the record that the surge of 21,000 troops into the Baghdad area won't be complete until the end of May, and that Congress and the American people can be expected to measure the success or failure of the mission by then.

    Iraqi Troops' Short Baghdad Tours Faulted
    But Some Experts Say Quicker Pace Enhances Training

    As the U.S. military sends more troops into Baghdad for stays of 15 months or longer, some Iraqi army soldiers participating in the same counterinsurgency operation are serving under a rotation schedule officially lasting just three months, according to senior officers at the Pentagon and Multi-National Force-Iraq.

    The iraqis aren't stepping up or leading.

    The violence has worsened in exactly the original time frame to see whether the surge was working.

    There are more civilian deaths.

    bush is planning permanent military bases for at least 50 years of occupation.

    You are right about one thing (none / 0) (#30)
    by Slado on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 11:31:08 AM EST
    We will have a base in Iraq for 50 years and probably longer.

    We still have a base in Germany, Korea etc... and we will have one in Iraq forever because it makes sense.

    Occupation or no occupation.


    World domination (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Sailor on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 05:03:03 PM EST
    we will have one in Iraq forever because it makes sense.
    It only makes sense if you're a cartoon character who wants to take over the world.

    sailor (1.00 / 1) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 08:06:40 AM EST
    Actually if you take a look at a globe, you will see that Iraq is of extreme importance due to its strategic geographical location.

    PNAC (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 11:12:11 AM EST
    This is not a game of Monopoly.

    a base in Germany, Korea (none / 0) (#81)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 08:54:41 PM EST
    And the civilian populations in those countries are fighting tooth and nail to drive the US out, just like in Iraq, right slado?

    BTD (1.00 / 4) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 11:01:02 PM EST
    And you seem so pleased....why is that??

    Do I? (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 11:09:40 PM EST
    Why do you think so? Who'da thunk it refers to the fact that this was all predicted and it will be more of the same Jim.

    But you will never learn.

    Do me a favor Jim. NEVER insinuate what you are insinuating now again.

    It is am outrage. You do not like that we are right about Iraq. I do not like it either.

    But not liking it will not make it go away.

    7 soldiers died today.

    People like you are the reason why now.

    How do you like them apples Jim?

    Stop the crap. I am in no mood for it.


    BTD (1.00 / 1) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 07:42:34 AM EST
    It is am outrage. You do not like that we are right about Iraq. I do not like it either.

    Nope. I think you are wrong about Iraq. And my comment was not a reflection on your patroitism, but rather what I, and I believe many see as a happiness, not over the deaths of the soldiers, but over "winning" what you believe is a political argument/point without consideration of the rest of what that means, the war itself.

    I give you:

    Who'da thunk it? Plan B anyone?

    If you don't mean it that way, so be it. But now you know how others take it.

    And you should understand that many others see the demonstrations of many on the Left as being extremely negative to the war effort.

    Things like this aren't well received, and many think it cheers the enemy.

    And this is how the troops see it.

    So we are both a little sensitive. You say I took you wrong. Okay.

    But try and understand how others see a comment such as the one you ended with.


    PPJ explores the limits of wrongness (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 09:06:21 AM EST
    If the doctor says, based on his experience, that the patient is going to die, and you make plans to take a vacation with the patient but the patient does die, you would ask the doctor why he was so happy about the the patient being dead.

    If your financial analyst says this stock is going to tank, and you buy it anyway and it tanks, you would ask the analyst why he was so happy that it tanked.

    I'm pretty unhappy that I was right about Iraq.  I am extremely pissed off that I was right.  I AM EFFING FURIOUS THAT I WAS RIGHT.

    Why aren't you unhappy that you have been so wrong for so long?


    RePack (1.00 / 1) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 10:08:46 AM EST
    Because I don't think that we were wrong to invade Iraq.

    We were wrong to not use more resources.

    We were wrong to not tell the remnants of the Iraqi army to go to their barracks and remain there and we would be sure they were paid.

    We were wrong to not tell Iran and Syria in no uncertain words that if we saw any type of help coming from them, or across the borders we would take immediate action against them.

    And then do it when they did.

    You win wars by killing the enemy. Instead we have played the "good guy" role and allowed the enemy to kill our soldiers.

    We are wrong to engage in partisan politics over the war. We are wrong to demonstrate against the war. Like it or not, the demonstrations hurt the war effort.

    We are wrong to have arguments over "if" we are going to fund the war because the enemy sees this as meaning that all he has do do is wait and we will leave.

    This is very important. The middle of the road Moslems see us leaving and the terrorists remaining. If you were there would you support the departing US or the remaining terrorists?


    The surge was designed to do three things.

    1. Get enough troops in place to kill enough terrorists to convince them to leave.

    2. Remain in control so that they won't come back.

    3. Item 2 assumes that the Iraqis, through training and belief in our long term commitment

    Note how items 1 and 2 are contradicted the "funding" debates. See paragraph directly above "Duhhhhhhh....."

    Have a nice day.


    Wrong = right (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 10:30:39 AM EST
    Freedom is slavery.

    Peace is war.

    Orwell was an optimist.

    You say we were wrong about just about everything, and I concur.  From that you then draw the conclusion that it even though everything about it went wrong, it was a good idea despite the fact that it has wrecked our economy and killed as many Americans as died on 9/11, as well as tens of thousands of INNOCENT Iraqis, far more than the number of American casualties on 9/11 and from a smaller population.

    Are you so bitter because you live alone, or do you live alone because you are so bitter?  Chicken or egg?


    RePack (1.00 / 1) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 11:17:26 AM EST
    I see Iraq as a battle in the WOT. You do not. Unless that difference is resolved, we will never be able to reach an agreement.

    I see mistakes in what we didn't do, and what we didn't do enough of. That makes me unhappy, but I understand that mistakes are made in battle. The question is, how to fix them.

    You want to cut and run. I think that would make things much worse.

    The economy seems to be doing quite well at the present, thank you.

    I find it well, discouraging that you think only the Left can be against deaths, both civilian and military. I despise both, but recognize that death is the fruits of war, and that if war is prolonged, then deaths will increase.

    Listen  to what a soldier says about this.

    As to bitterness, I think your many snarky personal attacks demonstrate that it is many on the Left, unable to mount a counterargument, are bitter.


    Propaganda works on Jim (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 12:05:17 PM EST
    I see Iraq as a battle in the WOT.

    That's where we differ.

    The "war on Terror," is no more than an empty slogan, and a transparent effort by already exposed liars and thieves in the White House to use terrorism to advance their own anti-American interests, every bit as much as much as Osama uses terrorism to advance his.

    When the White House threatens me with terrorism if I do not support their corrupt activities they are morally no different from Osama, and if I let them manipulate me with terrorism that would mean that I am a coward who values the illusion of safety more than truth and freedom.

    I would rather use tax monies to improve the lives of Americans than use it to kill innocent Iraqis and brave American military personnel.  Perhaps you have heard that the tree of liberty is watered with the blood of patriots.  I would rather take my chances with terrorists than cower under a bed and ask to have my freedom taken away and the treasury squandered and stolen just because George W. Bush says there is a boogieman.

    You are free to cower under your own bed and give up the freedom better people than you died to obtain for you, but don't expect me to join you.


    RePack (1.00 / 1) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 12:15:53 PM EST
    You know, I keep looking for that freedom you tell me I have lost, but I just can't find it.

    That you can't find your (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 03:55:05 PM EST
    lost freedom is precisely the problem, jimbo.

    Repack ignores the troops (none / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 06:19:59 PM EST
    BTW - Why do you ignore what the soldier says??

    He is there.

    Is he wrong?


    Yes, Jim, he's very wrong (none / 0) (#64)
    by Dadler on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 10:14:39 PM EST
    A Blackhawk helicopter pilot, Chief Warrant Officer Jim Funk has flown more than 80 combat missions since he arrived there in October.

    As I've read many a time, and as my brother has told me, the only optimistic soldiers there are those who haven't been there very long.  His experience is in the months, not the years.  Also, judging from his tone and logic, he's not someone I'd consider an astute student of the conflict he's actually involved in.  There are plenty of people doing things every day they don't really understand.  We drive cars and have no idea how they operate.  There are great basketball players who don't know all the rules of the game.  

    This soldier's notion of what constitutes "support" as a soldier in a FREE COUNTRY is insulting to every free American.  But it's easier to follow blindly than to deal with the ugly realities of our failure there.

    He's wrong.  To an extent that is depressing and thoughtless.  But, Jimbo, for every three soldiers who think the war is b.s., of course you can find one who doesn't.  Remember, my boy, it doesn't require a lick of freedom, not an ounce, to toe the company line.  Only soldiers who disagree are at risk for speaking their minds.

    He's wrong.  My brother would say he's wrong.  My brother, who has served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, has said the surge is a terrible idea and that it's doomed.  Is he wrong?  To you, of course he is.

    He's wrong, he's deluded, he's gung-ho in the most empty-headed sense of the word.  


    Dadler (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 10:41:57 PM EST
    If you want to argue with someone who is there based on what a third party has told you, be my guest.

    Me, I believe the guy who is there.

    BTW - 8 months is a very long time in combat conditions.


    BTW (1.00 / 1) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 10:51:30 PM EST
    I am not Jimbo and I am not your "boy." This is life, not a movie so quit acting like you're a retired Col who knows more than anyone because you have been told more.

    And since you have brought your brother into the conversation, I have no reason to believe he is any more astute that the Blackhawk pilot.


    Facts have a snarky bias (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 12:10:07 PM EST
    As to bitterness, I think your many snarky personal attacks demonstrate that it is many on the Left, unable to mount a counterargument, are bitter.

    Pointing out the bitterness that imbues all of your posts is not snark, it is an observation.

    Pointing out that you live alone, for whatever reasons, is merely stating a fact.  If you don't like that fact, change it.


    RePack (1.00 / 1) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 12:14:32 PM EST
    That I live alone???

    Please tell me about your powers of observation again.

    I'm lol...


    delusional (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 07:46:21 PM EST
    1. If you wanted to send a message, the message should have been capturing or killing OBL.
    2. Iraq had nothing to do with the so called war on terror. Saddam was not a threat to us or any other country. Neither Saddam nor Iraq participated in 9-11; no Iraqi was among the 18 hijackers.
    3. As for the flypaper theory, the majority of fighters in Iraq are insurgents, not Al Qaeda.

    All 3 points have been pointed out to you, Jim, on several occasions by more then 1 person here.


    #3 (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 08:23:25 PM EST
    The one and only reason the 1 or 2 thousand al-Qaida fighters are in Iraq is to fight the Americans. Their throats would be slit by the Sunnis or Shiites if the Americans left.

    The crazy thing is that both   At best the US (WH, Congress, etc.) and al-Qaida are mutually benefiting from the flypaper theory and at worst secret allies. Saudi connection.

    Precluding controlling it keeping Iraqi oil off the market has been a goal for a long time.


    squeaky (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 09:42:56 PM EST
    The problem with all of this is that we can't afford to lose.

    Quit arguing about WMD's and al-Qaida and just figure out what the cost of surrendering will be.


    King Pyrrhus of Epirus (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 07:12:44 AM EST
    via Plutarch and  Dionysius:

    The armies separated; and, it is said, Pyrrhus replied to one that gave him joy of his victory that one more such victory would utterly undo him. For he had lost a great part of the forces he brought with him, and almost all his particular friends and principal commanders; there were no others there to make recruits, and he found the confederates in Italy backward. On the other hand, as from a fountain continually flowing out of the city, the Roman camp was quickly and plentifully filled up with fresh men, not at all abating in courage for the loss they sustained, but even from their very anger gaining new force and resolution to go on with the war

    Mayhaps you have heard this before?


    MB (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 09:39:43 PM EST
    What message are you talking about??

    Nice opinion, but wrong.

    Flypaper theory?? Messages?>

    And you want to talk about delusional??


    You are the one who continues to ask (none / 0) (#68)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 07:05:48 AM EST
    "what kind of message does that send" or "what does that tell the terrorists" etc. YOU always worry that we will be perceived as weak and unable to finish the job. Too bad the man you blindly loyally follow didn't finish off OBL. IF he had, what would that have told "the terrorists" about attacking the US?  

    I am not surprised you suddenly can't recall using such phrases and concepts.

    The flypaper theory my dear boy is a concept you have heard here and on the news.  I gather, Jimbo, you no longer espouse the concept of "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here". Good to know we have finally disabsued you of that notion. Good to know you have finally figured out that most of the people we are fighting in Iraq are insurgents not Al Qaeda and that Insurgents want us out of their country, not to follow us home.

    Its been a long painful process to bring you back to reality. I am cautiously optimistic that it will be worth the trouble we have gone to here.  

    Oh one more thing, here are some soldiers who have been there you might want to listen to as they might know a thing or two you do not.


    Molly B (1.00 / 1) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 08:00:07 AM EST
    I find your points of no consquence and your attitude one that reflects "we can not."

    Thank goodness this attitude wasn't around on D Day.


    We CAN (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 08:37:24 AM EST
    bring you back to reality. Its just not easy. Especially when you continue to confuse the invasion of D-Day and WWII with the occupation of Iraq and Operation Iraqi Liberation


    DA - MB (none / 0) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 10:23:51 AM EST
    Don't like that one?

    Think "Cemetery Ridge."


    ppj won't grasp this but you and others will (none / 0) (#79)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 06:29:09 PM EST
    The Iraqis have a word - "Sahel":
    Listen to Iraqis engaged in the fight, and you realize they are far from exhausted by the war. Many say this is only the beginning.
    It was at the site of that ancient bloodletting, Karbala, that I twice witnessed the intense Shiite ache for righteousness and triumph. In early 2004, thousands of young fighters in the Mahdi Army, the militia of the nationalist Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, fought and died in a fevered uprising against the Americans. Last March, the same zealotry showed in a different way, as millions of Shiite pilgrims marched to Karbala's shrines to commemorate the death of Hussein. They went despite relentless attacks by Sunni Arab suicide bombers. To them, it was all part of the unending war.

    "No country in the world is fighting such terrorism," said Adel Abdul Mehdi, an Iraqi vice president and leader in the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, a powerful Shiite party, on the day he made his pilgrimage. "Every time we give more martyrs, we are more determined. This is a big battle, there is no such battle in the world."

    The Shiites have waited centuries for their moment on the throne, and the war is something they are willing to tolerate as the price for taking power, said the Iraqi leader who had invited me to dinner in the Green Zone. "The Shia say this is not exceptional for them, this is normal," he said.

    The belief of the Shiites that they must consolidate power through force of arms is tethered to ever-present suspicions of an impending betrayal by the Americans. Though the Americans have helped institute the representative system of government that the Shiites now dominate, they have failed to eliminate memories of how the first President Bush allowed Saddam Hussein to slaughter rebelling Shiites in 1991. Shiite leaders are all too aware, as well, of America's hostility toward Iran, the seat of Shiite power, and of its close alliances with Sunni Arab nations, especially Saudi Arabia.

    "No country in the world is fighting such terrorism,"Mehdi is not talking about what Bush would refer to as terrorists. He is talking about Americans and Sunnis.

    (h/t to Alien Abductee)


    OFF TOPIC TROLL POST (none / 0) (#80)
    by Sailor on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 06:42:36 PM EST
    Geebus, Jeralyn, why do you let ppj go off topic about WW2 and the Civil War and continue to detract from the actual topic?

    You must see by now that he has nothing (except donations to your site) to offer except trolling and off topic personal attacks.


    Jesus, Jim (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 09:22:23 AM EST
    You are one disgusting human being.

    jim (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 10:49:42 AM EST
    Cut the bullsh*t about a "political argument".

    Even you cannot possibly be that obtuse and in denial. This has nothing to do with a "political argument". It has everything to do with people, and with keeping them from dying, instead of feeding them into a soulless meatgrinder of George Bush's making, with your cheering support.

    Human beings, jim.

    You come here every day repeating the same utter garbage, while you see BTD and others criticizing the Democratic Leadership as harshly as Bush's insane administration.

    Cut the bullsh*t about a "political argument". It is only your last, desperate, failing attempt to avoid facing the horrible reality. No one is buying it, except you. There is absolutely nothing left you can say that will justify the Debacle.

    Why do you do this to yourself? Even worse, why do you need others to die so you can remain in denial?


    Edger (1.00 / 1) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 11:39:27 AM EST
    Your continual personal attacks makes it difficult to deal with you, but I will try, again.

    First, as I noted to RePack, I see Iraq as an important battle in the WOT.

    I am unsure of what you see. You continually harp on death, etc., but you never have answered this question.

    Are you against all wars?

    Or are you just against the battle of Iraq?

    If you are against all wars, I recognize that as an acceptable moral position. Selfish perhaps, but still an acceptable moral position.

    If you are not aganst all wars, then the question becomes, why are you against this "war."

    When you answer that question, we can go forward.

    Absent that I see your complaints as politically motivated.


    Cut the bullsh*t, jim. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 11:58:53 AM EST
    The only connection Iraq has with your wot fantasy is exactly that, a fantasy that you can justify the destruction of a country, the murder of a million of it's people, and avoid facing the ugly fact that Bush and his supporters, you included, are responsible for the deaths and maimings of US troops.

    Edger (1.00 / 1) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 12:17:32 PM EST
    Since you don't answer, I assume that you recognize your position can not be defended.

    One more time.

    Are you against all wars, or just the battle of Iraq??


    jim (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 12:27:42 PM EST
    much as you would like to avoid talking about the death in Iraq caused by Bush's invasion, and avoid your responsibility and support of causing that death, and divert to something else... it's not working.

    It's only making you look worse.


    Edger (1.00 / 1) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 06:13:38 PM EST
    I have no problem saying that deaths are the fruits of war, and did so just above...

    That, however, has nothing to do with the question that you won't answer.

    Are you against all wars??

    Or just against this war??

    You really can't expect to be taken seriously until you answer that question.


    Conversion to all bold isn't particularly (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 07:44:40 PM EST

    And your point is??? (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 10:06:22 PM EST
    Sometimes I have a visit from the devil and he makes me do mean things.



    Your denial is not surprising. (none / 0) (#38)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 12:00:19 PM EST
    It must be difficult to face the mirror.

    But it's not helping you.


    edger (1.00 / 1) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 12:19:56 PM EST
    Answer the basic question, and then we can discuss. If you can't do that then your motive is obviously as you stated here:

    Do we offer them respect? Absolutely not. We do our best to marginalize and get rid of them.

    If you want respect, jim (none / 0) (#46)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 12:39:55 PM EST
    you're going to have to get it the old fashioned way. You're going to have to earn it. Until you do, the only help you'll get from me is help marginalizing you. And you won't need much help from me with that - you're doing quite well on your own.

    Edger, you can priss (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 10:04:33 PM EST
    You can posture.

    You can complain.

    You can dodge.

    But at the end of the day for your position to mean anything, you must establish what your core beliefs are.

    If you are against all wars, just so.

    If you are just against the WOT, just say so.

    If you are for the WOT, but don't believe Iraq is part of it, just say so...

    But your continual complaining and whining does nothing but prove that you really have no position except for some vague libertarian anti-war positions that say if we would go away, so would the terrorists.

    That is not believeable, not proveable and totally illogical based on what the radical Moslems have done, and said.

    So, I ask again. Assume that the Left has driven the US to surrender and leave Iraq.

    What would be your strategy?


    What war (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 12:47:50 PM EST
    hasnt brought with it rape, torture, child abuse, murder etc

    Are you saying you're "for" the above mentioned things in some instances, Jim?

    Yes or no. Which is it?


    Jondee (1.00 / 2) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 06:16:43 PM EST
    What a wonderful example of The Logic Of Jondee.

    Your question is so idiotic you should be ashamed to have asked it.

    War has also freed slaves, founded nations and deposed tyrants.

    Are you against all wars?

    Or just against this war?

    Simple question.


    OFF TOPIC TROLL POST (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Sailor on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 09:30:23 PM EST
    black is beautiful, bold is just screeching.

    sailor (1.00 / 2) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 10:08:06 PM EST
    You know, I agree that Jondee was off topic, but he made such a really, really snarky comment and personal attack I just had to reply,

    in bold.


    jim (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 11:16:16 PM EST
    No one, no one, is pleased that people, US troops and Iraqis, are dying because George Bush is homicidal enough to try to buy himself enough time to end his term without facing reality.

    wow (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Jen M on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 08:12:21 AM EST
    I guess you really do lack any empathy.
    I thought you've been pretending.

    "pleased" does not in any way describe the feeling of BTD's writting.

    Snarling is closer to it.


    Jen M (1.00 / 1) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 08:14:51 AM EST
    That is your take.

    Mine is different.


    how would you know (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Jen M on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 08:16:09 AM EST
    your track record is not that good

    Jen M - Why the snark?? (1.00 / 1) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 09:38:24 AM EST
    My take is my take.

    I didn't speak for you.


    I apologize (none / 0) (#32)
    by Jen M on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 11:36:43 AM EST
    I shouldn't have posted that. Sorry.

    Jen M (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 11:40:17 AM EST
    Thanks and accepted.

    You know what's depressing? (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 11:41:28 PM EST
    I was just leafing back through some of your last dkos diaries from March. Absolutely nothing has changed since then--not the arguements or the people making them--and the interceding vetoed supplemental was a distracting mirage. Democrats are either being stupid or disingenuous with their base.I think it's the latter because they know that they don't have 218 votes to not fund, and they assume that they never will. I'm really depressed about all of this.

    Funny (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 11:53:30 PM EST
    I think the Netroots is being either stupid or disingenuous.

    Pols are pols. They do what they do.

    It is Move On/MYDD/DKos et al who are the ones that are failing here imo.


    Gets into a question of leadership (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 12:04:32 AM EST
    Obama and Hoyer can be expected to know better than the sycophants at daily kos. So, frankly, should Markos, Bowers, Stoller, etc. MYDD has been especially irritating, what with the time they spend on 2008. It suddenly feels like 2002 again, which is why I say that Harry Reid had his Daschle moment last week; I think he knows it too.

    Deaths from IEDs have risen (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 11:44:59 PM EST
    precipitously since the beginning of the surge.

    Witthout meaning to say (none / 0) (#7)
    by Green26 on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 11:47:28 PM EST
    the surge is working, consider the following:

    the last surge troops are just now arriving;

    most of the surge troops are not in Baghdad--only 9,000 of what I believe was officially increased to about 30,000 (from 21,500);

    the surge was not intended to only help Baghdad;

    there are reports of a second surge, which is significantly increasing the number of combat troops, as opposed to support troops (note how few combat troops are actually in Iraq): "The little-noticed second surge, designed to reinforce U.S. troops in Iraq, is being executed by sending more combat brigades and extending tours of duty for troops already there. The actions could boost the number of combat soldiers from 52,500 in early January to as many as 98,000 by the end of this year if the Pentagon overlaps arriving and departing combat brigades." SF Chronicle, 5/22.

    quotes from the same NY Times article:

    "Violence has diminished in many areas, but it is especially chronic in mixed Shiite-Sunni neighborhoods in western Baghdad,"

    "We were way too optimistic," said the officer, adding that September is now the goal for establishing basic security in most neighborhoods, the same month that Bush administration officials have said they plan to review the progress of the plan. Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the senior American ground commander in Iraq, said in a brief interview that he never believed that a midsummer timetable for establishing security in Baghdad was realistic."

    From a Yahoo article on Saturday:

    1. "U.S. and Iraqi officials have claimed recent success in the effort to isolate al-Qaida, particularly in the western Anbar province, where many Sunni tribes have banded together to fight the terror network.

    A growing number of Sunni tribes have reportedly been turning against al-Qaida elsewhere as well, repelled by the terror network's sheer brutality and austere religious extremism.

    The extremists also are competing with nationalist groups for influence and control over diminishing territory in the face of U.S. assaults, a situation exacerbated by the influx of Sunni fighters to areas outside the capital as they flee a nearly 4-month-old security crackdown."

    2. "I think this is happening because of al-Qaida's brutality," said Ehsan Ahrari, professor and specialist in counterterrorism at the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies. "They have been hurting the Sunni population in Iraq and that is coming back to hurt al-Qaida."

    "The event itself is significant because it looks like the U.S. is making some breakthrough in terms of establishing consensus with the Sunni population," he said. "Of course we have to hold our breath and see, but this is important no doubt."

    Yep, things are looking great...only 14 more dead U.S. troops in the last 3 days. And only 127 last month. Can you just smell that burning flesh smell of success? We really turned a corner now I tell ya. At this rate we'll be outta there by 2019 at the latest.

    NYT's not a reliable source (none / 0) (#18)
    by Slado on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 09:09:10 AM EST
    The NYT's doesn't like the war and they haven't since it began and they've declared defeat before.   Remember how we where losing on the way to Baghdad?

    That is one take on the surge.

    There are several other from biased and non biased sources.



    Downright Optimistic

    Credibility gap (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 10:02:40 AM EST
    The Post, the Inky and Clownhall?

    You READ that crap?

    I have no love for the NYT since they put the head liar/cheerleader/whore, Judith Miller on the front page and hid dissenting voices who were actually right in the want ads, but CLOWNHALL?

    Have they ever been right about anything?

    If you know.


    Yes (none / 0) (#31)
    by Slado on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 11:33:45 AM EST
    They are right alot of the times but sometimes they make up their minds(Duke Rape case) and they report it that way from the start and till the end no matter the facts.

    This is the case with the war once it started going badly and frankly before it did.

    So be it.

    In this media age we have plenty of choices to get our news and frankly none of them are now without bias.   Some just have the bias we like.


    of course ... (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Sailor on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 10:06:26 AM EST
    ... the truth has a liberal bias.

    From the Amer. Forces Press Services-5/25 (none / 0) (#36)
    by Green26 on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 11:42:38 AM EST
    This says that the US expects violence to pick up this summer, AQ is a big part of the violence and AQ does large attacks that increse the numbers. AQ and the insurgency clearly play to the anti-war sentiment in the US and the US media.

    Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said the United States is dealing with a "smart, agile, thinking enemy" in Iraq that's technologically sophisticated and understands what's happening in the United States. That includes debate about Iraq.

    As a result, Gates said, it's likely that these forces will increase their violence during the summer months, before Multinational Force Iraq Commander Army Gen. David H. Petraeus issues an assessment in September.

    "I think we should be prepared for them to make a very strong effort to increase the level of violence in July and August," the secretary said. "My hope is that anticipating it will allow us to thwart it."

    Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, agreed that experience shows the enemy is likely to seize on the opportunity to influence its outcome. "From an enemy standpoint, attacking as best they can in July and August would make sense from their standpoint," he said.

    As a result, he said, it's important for U.S. and coalition troops to be prepared. "We need to be prepared for that additional effort on their part, to defeat it and to turn it back," he said.

    Gates acknowledged that al Qaeda has had a big effect on the current picture in Iraq. "This situation would look very different if it weren't for al Qaeda," he said.

    "Whatever progress is made, and particularly in the last few months, often is overshadowed when al Qaeda will launch a major attack that kills a lot of innocent civilian Iraqis," he said.

    Stave off defeat?? (none / 0) (#50)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 05:37:56 PM EST
    Retired Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez speaks:
    "I think if we do the right things politically and economically with the right Iraqi leadership we could still salvage at least a stalemate, if you will -- not a stalemate but at least stave off defeat," Sanchez told the San Antonio Express-News. "It's also kind of important for us to answer the question, `What is victory?', and at this point I'm not sure America really knows what victory is." [...]

    "I am absolutely convinced that America has a crisis in leadership at this time ....."

    think progress

    If we do the right things????? is a very, very,  big if.

    Sanchez is being honest that Iraq is a failure, but he stops short of calling for defunding/withdrawl and pays homage to Friedman: crisis in leadership at this time.  As if a new administration can fix a broken Iraq or that if we get the right puppets in Iraq gov we will stave off defeat.

    Squeaky (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 10:09:57 PM EST
    I agree. And the crisis starts with retired Generals who could serve the country better by playing more golf and talking less.

    it's becoming SOP ... (none / 0) (#77)
    by Sailor on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 11:30:06 AM EST
    ... for ppj to deny yet another group the freedom of speech.

    He's all kinds of fond of quoting the one soldier he could find in all the news that thinks iraq is an excellent adventure, but god forbid all the generals who have actually been there and decided and implemented policy have a right to speak the truth.


    JimakaPPJ's Pitiable Revisionist History (none / 0) (#73)
    by Aaron on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 08:21:52 AM EST
    I imagine years from now Jim will be blaming our failure in Iraq on the lefties at TalkLeft, the same way he holds hippies responsible for our failure in Vietnam, and Nixon was the finest of Americans, and Senator Joseph McCarthy was a much-maligned unsung hero etc..  Jesus Jim can't you do any better than this? Should I send you some books?

    I think I'm going to have to start advocating the conservative viewpoint around here because they actually have some valid points and concerns, but Jim does such a abysmal job of advocating them that they don't get the due consideration and discussion that they occasionally deserve.

    I'm sorry Jim but your performance is a affront to genuine conservatives everywhere.  Time to shape up or ship out Jim-boy.  :-)