In Baghdad civilian down, solely because the insurgents have been successful in their ethnic cleansing. When we stifle the insurgency on one region, it reappears somewhere else. And sometimes violence just dies down as insurgents re-group and re-think their strategies. Lulls are not always related to American activity. Their timetables are not our timetables, and there is no way to end the insurgency with more soldiers, more weapons, and more testosterone. Juan Cole’s main point is that “there’s no sign of a political solution to this thing, which is the only real solution to this kind of guerrilla war.” I don’t see any way to refute this.

Juan Cole: Violence in Iraq ‘has not subsided.’

Well, D U H !

No, it’s about increasing security. When you put a lot more cops on the street, you don’t do it so that you can increase crime. It’s about their presence increasing the level of security.

What we’ve done is simply increase the number of targets.

And you’re still an idiot.

DRAFT THE RICH.

Comment by wake-n-bake
I agree , then we can send the hollyweird types so we dont have to hear form them anymore

You are absolutely incorrect. Apples and oranges. I am talking civilians and you are talking military. You are making the same mistake I made in my first post. So if I am an idiot, I guess I am in good company with you.

What you said about seasons is 100% correct and I appreciate you pointing that out.

So how do you define success? Do you expect to send in thousands of extra troops and get a lot done with fewer deaths? The surge is about increasing the conflict so it should come as no surprise that there are increased military deaths. A surge in force will result in an increase in military deaths. That is a no brainer.

Yessir, that’s real progress. And yes, you’re still an idiot.

Let’s get back to the numbers rather than to names. Civilian deaths are DOWN. Military deaths are up. Maybe some people don’t know what a SURGE is. That means there is increased fighting which means a higher probability of deaths as more troops are present and in harms way. Unfortunate. But it also resulted in the least civilian casualties in one month since July 2006. Some of you kick and scream because Iraqi civilians are dying and call it failure. When the death toll slows down you say we are doing worse. Which is it?

Thank you.

“THE STATED purpose of the Iraq war was to ‘prevent’ the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud.”

Funny in a sick kind of way how neither was/is/will be TRUE!

Enlightening.

Y’all piss-soaked trolls don’t have to like it.

But the political benchmarks lie on the shoulders of the Iraqis. The surge was to provide them the opportunity to work with each other.

Ah, yes. It’s much better to have 1/3 of the country not represented. What part of democracy do you hate, exactly?

This does not mean the reconciliation process must stop. Now maybe some Sunnis who are serious about working with their fellow Iraqis will step up. You know, even elected officials can be bad leaders, I say good riddance!

In fact, there wouldn’t BE an Iraq if we weren’t.

Comment by toasterhead — August 16, 2007 @ 12:58 pm

Hey, buddy! It’s 2007!

Comment by Chris L — August 16, 2007 @ 12:52 pm

I read that the Sunnis gave al-Maliki an ultimatum, demanding that prisoners be set free and that security groups be disbanded in certain areas.

As for the oil problem, it seems that everyone wants it all, and that is another huge problem. However, I don’t think it was related to the walk out.

Really? Cause the White House sees things differently. They include political benchmarks in their progress report on the surge: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070712.html

(and by the way, the fact that the Separatist Sunni bloc quit, is a good sign because they were obviously not team players).

Ah, yes. It’s much better to have 1/3 of the country not represented. What part of democracy do you hate, exactly?

If the Coalition wanted to establish a permenant government in Iraq no matter what the cost, it would already be so. But we are not Imperialists, we are giving the Iraqis the opportunity that they need, and so far the surge has been an overwhelming success.

Comment by dumplings — August 16, 2007 @ 12:44 pm

You mean they’d have a stable government if we’d killed 2 million Iraqis instead of just 1 million?

And we are Imperialists. We wouldn’t be in Iraq if we weren’t. In fact, there wouldn’t BE an Iraq if we weren’t.

Comment by RemoveBush — August 16, 2007 @ 12:47 pm

Perhaps if someone had “passed the dutchie” to the “right” hand side some of our current problems could have been avoided