I know that you find it politically disadvantageous for the surge to work, but give our military a chance to win this war in Iraq. A man like McCain has experienced war and lead the military; his opinion should be trusted on this one.

But politically, Repubs will say: (1) The surge worked. (2) Iran backed down on nukes out of fear of regime change. (3) Al Queada is afraid to attack because they think we’ll just invade another Muslim country. By November, voters may come full circle on on Iraq. So look for the Dems to flip-flop on the surge.

Obama has already hedged on the surge. Hillary will hedge also.

What’s happening is really simple and it’s happening in plain sight. But it just so happens that these two Kool-Aid drinking fools refuse to connect the dots. When someone tells you that the “surge” is working, “enlighten” them with the following facts:
In July, 2007, which was America’s bloodiest summer in Iraq, attacks on American-led forces using a lethal type of roadside bomb said to be supplied by Iran reached a new high, according to the American military.

The devices, known as explosively formed penetrators, were used to carry out 99 attacks in July and accounted for a third of the combat deaths suffered by the American-led forces, according to American military officials. Such bombs, which fire a semi-molten copper slug that can penetrate the armor on a Humvee and are among the deadliest weapons used against American forces, are used almost exclusively by Shiite militants.

These Shiite militants are members of Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mehdi Army. As seen this past summer, Muqtada’s fighters shredding American forces – like ducks in a shooting gallery – despite the troop increase which began earlier in the year. This was during a summer in which we were bombarded with news of Iranian/Shia efforts to kill Americans and destabilize the Iraqi government. Then, without warning, Muqtada al-Sadr announced that he had ordered his militia to suspend offensive operations for six months (i.e.: stand down). And no one saw this coming. When this news was reported on August 30th, no one really believed it, much less expected the implementation of an actual cease-fire on the part of Iraq’s Shia fighters.

On September 1st, even the U.S. military admitted that this could be an important — if not the important — development in the situation on the ground in Iraq. “A stand down of Mehdi Army operations would also be an important step in helping Iraqi authorities focus greater attention on achieving the political and economic solutions necessary for progress and less on dealing with criminal activity, sectarian violence, kidnappings, assassinations, and attacks on Iraqi and coalition forces,” the military said.

When that was said by the U.S. military on September 1st, the “surge” was never mentioned. It was all about an Iraqi decision that would succeed or fail on Iraqi actions. The U.S. military was only observing. And guess what happened? U.S. troop deaths began plummet. American deaths dropped from 84 in August, to 65 in September, to 38 in October, with only 23 deaths in December – the lowest tally for a single month in over a year and a half. Having argued for months that Iranian-supplied Shia fighters were the most serious threat to U.S. forces in Iraq, those same forces had suddenly stopped fighting. And it showed.

But rather than recognize this for what it is, John McCain, Joe Lieberman and other right-wingers continue to spin the story as if this was the result of the “surge.” McCain boldly informed students at Coastal Carolina University (SC) that the United States has had “astonishing success” in Iraq as a result of the Petreaus military strategy now in place. However, Senator McCain never mentions the fact that our greatest enemy in Iraq, the Mehdi Army, has suspended battle operations. To exacerbate the spin, our idiot-in-chief said that since the troop increase reached full strength in June, the number of roadside bombs had been cut by half. He said U.S. military deaths were at their lowest in 19 months. Again, no mention of Muqtada al-Sadr, the Mehdi Army or his decision to stand down from combat operations. Predictably, it was all about the “troop increase.”

Unfortunately, no one seems to be calling President Bush, John McCain, Joe Lieberman, or the mainstream media on this ridiculous premise that the “Petreaus strategy” should be credited with the reduction in American deaths. Additionally, no one seems to notice as with everything else in Iraq, that the Iraqis are going to do what they want; when they want. While al-Sadr suspends combat operations, there will be relative peace in Iraq. If he takes them back up, Americans will once gain die in droves.

Believe what you may, but the future of Iraq will only improve based on Iraqi decisions made in Baghdad; not in Washington, D.C. and the halls of Congress. As this situation shows, peace in Iraq solely lies in the hands of Iraqis. It cannot and will never be forced by Americans at the point of a gun. Somebody please drop a bug in McCain’s and Lieberman’s ear before they overdose on Kool-Aid.

The media and the White House are hoping American’s forget about it even though Iraq’s political environment is still as it was a year ago.

Don’t get me wrong. It’s great news to know we aren’t losing the number of soldiers that we ‘were’ losing. Even one soldier’s life was worth it.

American’s need to be reminded that it was the Democratic Party’s constant pressuring and threatening to stop the funding for the war and demanding a date for withdraw, that finally forced President Bush to change course.

President Bush and his Party’s failure to admit their strategy wasn’t working — allowed several hundreds of our soldiers to be killed or injured.

Read More I think Democrats, should go back to discussing the war in Iraq.

The media and the White House are hoping American’s forget about it even though Iraq’s political environment is still as it was a year ago.

Don’t get me wrong. It’s great news to know we aren’t losing the number of soldiers that we ‘were’ losing. Even one soldier’s life was worth it.

American’s need to be reminded that it was the Democratic Party’s constant pressuring and threatening to stop the funding for the war and demanding a date for withdraw, that finally forced President Bush to change course.

President Bush and his Party’s failure to admit their strategy wasn’t working — allowed several hundreds of our soldiers to be killed or injured.

Read More: http://www.freewebs.com/coonsey/

Also, the point plunger was making, what defines peace?
— Is it (x) amount of US casualties?
— Is it (x) amount of Iraqi casualties?

What defines “united”?
— Sunni control of the region subverting the will of the Shia and Kurds?
— Shia control of the region subverting the will of the Sunni and Kurds?
— Kurdish control of the region subverting the will of Shia and Suni?
— A US installed dictator to ensure Iraq is friendly to the US?

What defines secure?
— (X) number of sectarian killings?
— (X) number of rapes and murders?
[....]

You see where we are going here. It is similar to the Miss America saying she hopes for World Peace. It is a vision, not a benchmark, plan, or something measurable. Since it is a “vision” it means something different to different people.

President Bush’s November 30, 2005, National Strategy for Victory in Iraq defines victory as a “peaceful, united, stable, and secure” Iraq.

Comment by kirkaracha — January 10, 2008 @ 3:40 pm

What if this victory is mutually exclusive with our occupation? Uh oh, we may have a conundrum.

Many, including many in the Military, believe that we are instigating the problem. If we are making things worse, and we can’t leave until things are all better, then we have a paradox. Instead, what many progressives, liberals, peace activists, and critical thinkers are saying is that we can’t just choose a desired outcome and hope it happens. We have to evaluate our effect on the situation and see if we are making things better, or worse.

After five years, more destabilization of the middle east, alienation of our allies, inciting and uniting our enemies, robbing our national treasury, and throwing US military service members in harms way for too long with little rest – it is time to end the insanity.

President Bush’s November 30, 2005, National Strategy for Victory in Iraq defines victory as a “peaceful, united, stable, and secure” Iraq.

Comment by kirkaracha — January 10, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
Add Karma Recommend (0) | Report Abuse

Which would also be an accurate definition in the aftermath of nuking the place and turning the sand to glass…

peaceful (dead bodies), united (fused), stable (flash frozen), and secure (devoid of humanity).

President Bush’s November 30, 2005, National Strategy for Victory in Iraq defines victory as a “peaceful, united, stable, and secure” Iraq.

TAKE IT TO THE BANK.

The entire process is rigged:

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5535

http://plungerspeaks.blogspot.com

In other words, dear, WE are all progressives here. YOU are not, therefore you are the odd man out here at TP – so you really oughtn’t complain about the tone and content of the posts.

Duh. We shouldn’t have to explain that to you, sparky.

Nor do I want to see Lieberman as Secretary of Defense (”I would definitely want Joe Lieberman to play a part — particularly in national security issues — in my administration.”=McCain)

So I personally have no problem with TP ridiculing both of these putzes.

President McCain & Vice President Lieberman.

Get used to it, because your votes are not going to be counted.

Comment by gummitch — January 10, 2008 @ 2:11 pm

Actually, I would happily vote for Obama.

And perhaps I will check out the sites you mention, it will make Matt and Bilbos day to not have to talk to someone who doesn’t agree with their every thought.

What’s that, you say? Dissect the positions of the Dem candidates so the likes of you can drop in and tear them down, and mumble something about socialism while you exit the forum as you head for dinner?

Anyone who has the know-how to get to this site can go visit any candidate’s web site and get any info straight from the campaign. Just last night I visited the sites of 4 candidates — 1 Dem and 3 Repubs — to get caught up on what plans they have in store for the health care crisis.

As for TP’s contribution to the election, on March 22nd of last year they posted a thread regarding a presidential forum on health care, attended by Dem candidates, and it included the opportunity for TP readers to participate by submitting any questions they may have.