Sen. Reed: The Surge Has ‘Stopped The Bleeding’ In Iraq, But Has Not ‘Repaired The Deep Wounds’
Sen. Reed: The Surge Has ‘Stopped The Bleeding’ In Iraq, But Has Not ‘Repaired The Deep Wounds’
Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), a senior member of the Armed Services Committee and former Army Ranger, just returned from his 11th trip to Iraq. Speaking to reporters today about his trip, Reed rebutted conservatives’ assertions of success in Iraq:
First, the surge has not achieved the president’s principal stated objectives, which are political in nature. [...]
The question’s usually posed, Well, has the surge worked? Well, it’s worked much in the way a tourniquet has worked: It stopped the bleeding. But the very delicate political surgery needed to repair the deep wounds in this country and initiate a long-term process of healing and stability has not taken place, and that is the critical issue that I think we face today.
Also, the security gains, which are demonstrable, can be reversed.
Watch it:
Reed also added that he spoke to U.S. troops who were experiencing “fatigue,” adding that “you can’t have a conversation without people noting the wear and tear that’s taking on the forces, on their families. That’s a cumulative phenomenon and it’s getting worse.” His comments mirror those of Army Chief of Staff George Casey, who recently stated that the “surge has sucked all of the flexibility out of the system.”
Additionally, Reed stressed that the bleeding may start again, noting that radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr’s “six-months self-imposed suspension of offensive operations is coming to an end.” His caution undermined claims by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and John McCain (R-AZ), who have prematurely declared success in the war.
Transcript:
Let me make some general points and then open it up to your questions.
First, the surge has not achieved the president’s principal stated objectives, which are political in nature: the significant progress on reconciliation, distribution of oil revenues and basic government capacity of the Iraqi government, requiring difficult political decisions.
It has reduced the level of violence, and that is a notable achievement.
The question’s usually posed, Well, has the surge worked? Well, it’s worked much in the way a tourniquet has worked: It stopped the bleeding. But the very delicate political surgery needed to repair the deep wounds in this country and initiate a long-term process of healing and stability has not taken place, and that is the critical issue that I think we face today.
Also, the security gains, which are demonstrable, can be reversed.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I’d hate to be accused of premature evacuation here…
January 25th, 2008 at 5:52 pmi wish this guy would consider a run for the presidency.
January 25th, 2008 at 5:56 pmSo we stopped the bleeding and the Dems want to remove the troops (the Bandage) and start the bleeding again meaning surgery will never be possible. Pretty sad on the dems part.
January 25th, 2008 at 5:58 pmWe’ve made progress in the warfront at home, as Dem after Dem begrudgingly admits progress in Iraq.
I suspect they are feeling vulnerable in the upcoming election cycle.
Dems fear nothing so much as they fear elections.
January 25th, 2008 at 5:59 pmSo we stopped the bleeding and R2 wants to continue pouring China’s money and our young people’s lives into a deeply divided and ancient society far removed from our own, all so our fool of a President can run out the clock until he can dump this clusterf@(k on his successor. Pretty sad on R2’s part.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:02 pmSo we stopped the bleeding and the Dems want to remove the troops (the Bandage) and start the bleeding again meaning surgery will never be possible. Pretty sad on the dems part.
Comment by Roger_Roger — January 25, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
surgeons don’t usually need to call in airstrikes, idiot.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:08 pm.
The SURGE of 2007…
HIGHEST US CASUALTY RATE = SUCCESS? = nope, no blood spilt there!
HIGHEST CIVILIAN DEATH RATE = SUCCESS? = no, no blood spilt there!
NOT A DROP!
.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:09 pmPretty sad on the dems part.
Comment by Roger_Roger — January 25, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
I guess it must be pretty sad on the part of the 70% plus who want our troops outta there, especially their families, who want them home, alive and well, w/ all body parts functioning as the Great Spaghetti Monster intended, huh?
Or mebbe it’s just pretty stupid on R_R’s part…
January 25th, 2008 at 6:11 pmOne question for the president, his staff and the trolls.
What is it going to take, besides eternal occupation, to get the Iraqis to come to agreement and reconciliation?
Be honest now, what will it take?
January 25th, 2008 at 6:14 pm.
Too bad there isn’t a draft to fill the ranks that need to be filled in our crippled military.
If there were, do you think Americans might then care?
There is a reason why the DRAFT is “off the table”. It conveniently allows the American populace to remain apathetic to atrocities.
.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:14 pmOne question for the president, his staff and the trolls.
What is it going to take, besides eternal occupation, to get the Iraqis to come to agreement and reconciliation?
Be honest now, what will it take?
Comment by RUCerious — January 25, 2008 @ 6:14 pm
RUC, I hope you realize that you’ve set up a bit of an Escher drawing of a question here: you address “the president, his staff and the trolls” but then you include the requirement: “Be honest now”
See the problem?
January 25th, 2008 at 6:19 pmComment by Max-1 — January 25, 2008 @ 6:14 pm
Ding*Ding*Ding*Ding*Ding*Ding*
We have this hour’s winner here at TP!
January 25th, 2008 at 6:19 pmHow are these comments all that much different than Zakaria’s from the other day, about how we’re waging more of an occupation than a war at the moment?
Seems like Reed is expressing the same sentiment.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:19 pmMoqtada al-Sadr’s “six-months self-imposed suspension of offensive operations…”
- – Was that some sort of homage to Tom Friedman?
January 25th, 2008 at 6:21 pm.
Did I also mention that keeping the DRAFT off the table allows Americans to keep living their abject reality.
Buy Hummers and plaster them with US flags, stickers and magnets made in China.
Support the troops = Shop and buy, consume foreign goods, be allegient to “the cause”; The PIRATISM of another nation’s natural resources.
THINK ABOUT IT THIS WAY:
How would these loyalists feel if China invaded the USA, based on our previous use of nuclear bombs, proliferation of nuclear materials and other WMD’s, overthrowing our form of Government and supplanting it with their form of government, disbanding our military and occupying our bases, rampaging our homes and rounding up male citizens, young and old and selling them off to be tortured and detained permanently…
… All to secure our coal fields for their National Interest?
Who would argue in favor of China?
Who would argue against the insurgency?
.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:25 pmAnd how many dollars does that translate into?
January 25th, 2008 at 6:25 pmSo we stopped the bleeding and the Dems want to remove the troops (the Bandage) and start the bleeding again meaning surgery will never be possible. Pretty sad on the dems part.
Comment by Roger_Roger
RR seems to think that if we occupy Iraq forever, some time, some where the leaders will come together and form a government that can govern. It may take 6 days, six weeks, I doubt six months. The problems he won’t recognize are as follows:
1) We have broken our military and don’t have anyone to replace the troops we have to bring home in Feburary or March
2) The people and the Parliament in Iraq don’t want us there and think that we are not making the safer
3) That the bleeding can and probably will start again even if we don’t leave.
Dumb as a brick. That’s all I have to say about RR.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:27 pm#9, You may have a good point there. Romney, like bush wants to suck the National Guard dry. Exstend thoes who are in, and stop the news about the slaughter. Out of sight,out of mind thinking. War makes $, and gives bushco broad powers. Keep war going and the $ and the power. We must keep waking up the sheep.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:28 pmWhy insult bricks, bilbo?
What have bricks ever done to you?
January 25th, 2008 at 6:28 pmSee the problem?
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — January 25, 2008 @ 6:19 pm
Yes, I have seen the problem, and it seems intractable.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:28 pmSen. Reed: The Surge Has ‘Stopped The Bleeding’ In Iraq, But Has Not ‘Repaired The Deep Wounds
January 25th, 2008 at 6:28 pmOh stop it… let’s just call all this for what it really is:
INVASION-MASSACRE-GENOCIDE-OIL/LAND TAKE OVER….
Now, doorknobs… that’s another issue!
January 25th, 2008 at 6:28 pmToo bad there isn’t a draft to fill the ranks that need to be filled in our crippled military.
If there were, do you think Americans might then care?
There is a reason why the DRAFT is “off the tableâ€. It conveniently allows the American populace to remain apathetic to atrocities.
Comment by Max-1
There is a backdoor draft that Bush has been using since the beginning and that is the Contractors. Without them, he would not be able to continue to occupy Iraq. If he had been prevented from using the Contractors to do the jobs that our military normally does, he would never have been able to sustain the occupation.
I don’t understand how the Democrats in Congress don’t get it. They can end this occupation tomorrow simply by de-funding the contractors.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:30 pmAnyone else wondering why the Iraqis are insisting that the US troops be largely confined to their bases under the long term occupation terms being discussed with BushitCo?
January 25th, 2008 at 6:30 pmWhy insult bricks, bilbo?
What have bricks ever done to you?
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity
I’m sorry, how about “dumb as a post”. But then we would have to apologize to the posts to. OK, how about “just plain DUMB!”
January 25th, 2008 at 6:31 pm.
#23 Comment by RUCerious — January 25, 2008 @ 6:30 pm
Because stepping off base makes them prosecutable for WAR CRIMES?
.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:32 pmAnyone else wondering why the Iraqis are insisting that the US troops be largely confined to their bases under the long term occupation terms being discussed with BushitCo?
Comment by RUCerious
So that it will appear to the US public that things are going swimmingly because our guys aren’t getting killed? That way the public might get behind a permanent occupation of Iraq? Problem is, the US public is no longer dumb enough to fall for their tricks. Even though we are supposedly “winning”, the public opinion has not changed about us getting out of Iraq. Just as many people today want us out as did before we were supposedly “winning”.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:33 pm.
Q U E S T I O N:
How would these (D)BUSH(R) loyalists feel if China invaded the USA, based on our previous use of nuclear bombs, proliferation of nuclear materials and other WMD’s, overthrowing our form of Government and supplanting it with their form of government, disbanding our military and occupying our bases, rampaging our homes and rounding up male citizens, young and old and selling them off to be tortured and detained permanently…
… All to secure our coal fields for their National Interest?
Who would argue in favor of China?
Who would argue against the resulting insurgency?
.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:40 pmExcellent Max~1, just absolutely spot on.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:42 pm#28 Comment by RUCerious — January 25, 2008 @ 6:42 pm
Thanks,
Here’s another one to ponder:
Why are Americans so smitten with those dishonoring their Oath of Office that they refuse to confront them with the truth? Because those that dishonor their Oath are somehow… honorable?
WHAT DOES CONGRESS SUPPORT AND DEFEND IF NOT THE CONSTITUTION?
.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:47 pmWho would argue in favor of China?
Who would argue against the resulting insurgency?
Comment by Max-1
I have asked numerous trolls the same kind of question and you know what? None have answered. The closest they ever get to an answer is to say “that will never happen”.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:48 pmWHAT DOES CONGRESS SUPPORT AND DEFEND IF NOT THE CONSTITUTION?
Comment by Max-1
I know the answer to this one! Their pocketbooks!
January 25th, 2008 at 6:49 pmEnd this illegal criminal colonial imperial occupation of Iraq now.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:51 pm.
BROKEN PROMISE #6429035:
Elect me in 2006 and I’ll work to end the war in Iraq.
.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:55 pmLets reinstate the draft bet our military would be home in a month.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:58 pmHopefully there won’t be any retraction later and nobody gets waterboarded over this.
January 25th, 2008 at 7:00 pmExcept Sen. Reed is wrong, it is not the “Surge” that has stopped the bleeding, it’s the deal making with Sunni and Shiite insurgents. Leave it to a Democrat to give Bush regime talking points unwarranted credibility.
January 25th, 2008 at 7:06 pmWHAT DOES CONGRESS SUPPORT AND DEFEND IF NOT THE CONSTITUTION?
I’ve asked Congressman Inslee this several times, and the answer always keeps coming back to:
It isnt’ politically expedient….
January 25th, 2008 at 7:07 pmBad answer.
it’s the deal making with Sunni and Shiite insurgents
Not to mention the payoff of $300.00 a month to Sunni Awakening council members, plus all the bullets they can hoard to use against us later…
January 25th, 2008 at 7:08 pmExcuse me, Sen. Reid, but the Iraqi people are STILL bleeding because you are funding American militants.
January 25th, 2008 at 7:09 pmStopped what bleeding? Certainly not that of the Iraqi people.
January 25th, 2008 at 7:12 pmFrom yesterday’s Morning edition on NPR:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18368586
The U.S. and Iraq are negotiating an arrangement that would permit U.S. forces to continue to operate in Iraq for many years — possibly decades. Critics says the Bush and Maliki governments are colluding on a deal that would require no legislative approval.
It includes a provision that promises to maintain the stability of Iraq’s government from “internal and external threats.” This sentence is raising alarms for some U.S. lawmakers.
Such a hefty commitment would be unprecedented in the history of American foreign policy.
Bush is trying this underhanded scheme to commit our troops to Iraq’s civil war.He can’t CALL it a treaty, because treatys require congressional approval, but that’s what it is…and it will keep us occupying Iraq for decades.
January 25th, 2008 at 7:15 pmReed notes that American troops have been experiencing “fatigue”. Perhaps someone should inform the senator that the troops are also experiencing unnecessary death and becoming unnecessarily maimed and crippled, disfigured and dismembered and that this will continue to happen since, with the absence of Dennis Kucinich, none of the Democrats is advocating the immediate withdrawal of the troops from that abattoir in Iraq nor are they recommending that all the troops be withdrawn from Iraq, as all of the top three Democratic candidates are recommending that the troops be kept “over the horizon”, as if that foolish proposal will somehow placate the fears of the Iraqi people that American forces can be sent back into Iraq at a moment’s notice.
Bring those troops back-alive and in one piece-now.
January 25th, 2008 at 7:20 pmIf by delicate surgery you mean withdrawing of US troops and negotiating with the UN for peacekeepers to stabilize the country, then I agree 100%.
January 25th, 2008 at 7:57 pm.
#37 Comment by RUCerious — January 25, 2008 @ 7:07 pm
Inslee = Outslee
Keep up this difficult work.
McDermott was a push over for us Seattleites or maybe, he thought about it and is waking up.
Try asking Inslee:
HOW are you supporting and defending the Constitution of the USA when you excuse and allow it’s usurpation and violation? Aren’t you demonstrating through such excuse making a purpose of evading that Oath of Office you swore/affirmed to accept, “FAITHFULLY, without mental reservations or a purpose of evasion”? Isn’t the excuse, “it isn’t politically expedient” just that, an evasion to exact the hand of Justice, effectively demonstrating mental reservations on the matter, but also tying the hands of Justice?
.
January 25th, 2008 at 7:57 pm.
Also RUC,
Make Inslee defend the context he promotes: That the usurpation and violation of the Constitution is a force to NOT be reckoned with.
What does he think his Oath of Office means then? How is this not a contract with his Constituents?
.
January 25th, 2008 at 8:04 pmI agree on both counts. We can play a semantics game all we want using words like “working” and “succeeding,” but let’s just stick with Senator Reed’s analogy. The surge, as well as other policy changes, has led to security gains. Yet, do the “deep wounds” remain? Absolutely. However, it would be wrong to think there has not been any progress beyond that of a military nature; after all, economic and political gains have been made at the local level, much of it the result of more secure neighborhoods and provinces. And while we wait for meaningful national reconciliation, let’s not forget that oil wealth redistribution has occurred in a de facto fashion. In terms of actual, codified laws, there is not much to speak of other than the de-Baathification law, which is not as black and white as TP describes it. (Even if you read the critical NY Times take on it, you get a sense that implementation matters, and so the jury is out; furthermore, it’s hard to deny that adding a judicial check to the process is better than no check at all).
It’s a mistake to look at a relative absence of national political reconciliation and insist that it won’t happen. This is a long process, and we have a moral responsibility to be a part of it. I see no reason why Iraq would make more progress at a faster rate if we withdrew. If we stay, there is a good chance that neighborhoods will keep getting safer, economies will improve, infrastructure will be secured, local reconciliation will advance, and the goal of national political progress will be realized. Meanwhile, the Iraqi army keeps getting bigger and more independent. That’s the path that is our best hope for regional and global security. It’s not a good option, but there are no good options, just some that aren’t as bad as others.
January 25th, 2008 at 11:04 pmThe Bush puppet regime in Iraq has zero legitimacy: it has been created illegally by the occupying force. It has no standing in international law. It will collapse as soon as we start withdrawing our military forces. Bush cannot bind any future U. S. Administration with his illegal and criminal war and occupation of Iraq.
January 26th, 2008 at 12:16 amSomebody has to say it or else it’s going to be more of “we just need another six months” and then “another six months” and so on.
THE SURGE IS AN ABJECT FAILURE.
It hasn’t and CAN NOT deliver on what is necessary to be able to pull American troops out of Iraq: Political healing in Iraq.
I’ve predicted from the day that Bush started this war that he intended to keep Iraq in chaos so that we couldn’t ever leave. Not without the oil.
Republicans are not the only ones who need to be accountable. Democrats betrayed the American people’s trust too.
January 26th, 2008 at 4:36 amAfghanistan is heating up again, and Iraq is as violent as it was in 2005.
We do not have $12 billion a month to keep pouring down these holes.
A friend of mine in a little community outside of SF advertised for a data entry clerk on Craigslist the other day. He got 148 responses. It doesn’t pay beans.
The rebate in this stimulus package is going to be spent in Walmart, and China will own yet more of us. We make NOTHING here anymore. This is a joke!
What the hell are we doing with these losers on both sides of the aisles in congress?
January 26th, 2008 at 4:45 amThis gives me flashbacks to the Viet Nam era, when the word was “escalation.” We were always escalating–i.e., getting more people killed, spending more money–and pretending to see progress in the escalation.
January 26th, 2008 at 7:29 amBAGHDAD – A series of explosions thundered in the Iraqi capital Saturday morning, police said, including one from a mortar round that hit the U.S.-controlled Green Zone.
One of the explosions was a roadside bomb that targeted a U.S. patrol in eastern Baghdad. A police officer said the blast site was sealed by American forces and there was no immediate way to detail damage or casualties. There was no immediate report of the incident from the U.S. military.
January 26th, 2008 at 8:41 amThe Surge is a failure, like the president and his wars. all failures.
Thanks for 9/11, republiscum.
January 26th, 2008 at 11:17 ambleeding stopping from unrepaired rooms is a mutually exclusive condition, i.e., it can’t happen unless the bleedee has lost all their blood (bush hasn’t quite acheived that objective yet). Perhaps what the Senator was trying to convey is the false hope that the relentless slashing and creation of new wounds has subsided even while the blood continues to flow from old wounds.
January 26th, 2008 at 12:32 pm.
Lets reinstate the draft bet our military would be home in a month.
Comment by texaslady
If the Democrats refused to fund the 180,000 contractors our military would start coming home within a month. It is physically impossible to bring them all home in a month. That will probably take six months or more.
January 26th, 2008 at 12:57 pmIt is physically impossible to bring them all home in a month. That will probably take six months or more.
Comment by bilbobaggins — January 26, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
Whaddya mean? If we comandeer all of Saddam and Al Qaeda’s vast Air Force they’re going to “follow us home” in, we could get everybody home in a week, according to our wingnut cowards.
January 26th, 2008 at 1:30 pmStopped the bleeding ……… thats an insult to 50 a day dying because of an American occupation
SORRY NOT BUYING THAT SHIT
January 26th, 2008 at 1:57 pmAt least, no one is denying the surge has promoted a more secure environment. The first step to recovery is admission. We’re getting there.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — January 26, 2008 @ 1:49 pm
wow, what are you smoking? 28 dead soldiers so far this month, “we’re getting there”. You really hate those troops.
January 26th, 2008 at 2:59 pmNow, despite ‘progressive’ recalcitrance, those political divisions can be overcome.
I asked earlier for the plan as to how you suggest forcing the Iraqis to overcome their divisions. Haven’t heard one so far. Got plans, Manjacker?
January 26th, 2008 at 2:59 pmLos Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll. Jan. 18-22, 2008. N=1,312 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all registered voters).
“In your opinion, should the United States withdraw troops from Iraq right away, or should the U.S. begin bringing troops home within the next year, or should troops stay in Iraq for as long as it takes to win the war?”
Withdraw Right Away 20
Withdraw Within Year 43
Stay as Long As It Takes 31
Unsure 6
Manjacker, you’re clearly in the minority.
January 26th, 2008 at 3:05 pmAt least, no one is denying the surge has promoted a more secure environment. The first step to recovery is admission. We’re getting there.
Comment by CaptainMantastic
CM seems to think that spending a few billion dollars a day to keep a couple of neighborhoods in Baghdad safe is somehow a first step to something, not exactly sure what. The thing that CM and all the other Bush sycophants are missing is that these extra troops are going to have to start coming home soon, unless Betrayus extends their tours to 24 months from the current 15 months. And, Betrayus has no new troops to send back to replace them. So, all that money will have been wasted, since there has been NO real progress in the political arena in Iraq. And then there is the inconvenient truth that Al Sadar’s 6 months truce ends soon.
I really can’t understand why these idiot nonCONS think it is a good idea to bankrupt the United States to try to steal Iraq’s oil. Why not put those billions of dollars into developing clean energy. It would be cheaper, and it would have the added bonus of helping our economy by creating new jobs and creating more money to prop up our failing economic system.
January 26th, 2008 at 3:33 pmManjacker, you’re clearly in the minority.
Comment by RUCerious
And the interesting thing about those numbers is that they have not changed since before the escalation in Iraq. So, people realize that even if a couple of Baghdad neighborhoods are safer now (mostly because they have been ethnically cleansed) it really doesn’t mean anything in the long run. We cannot continue to pay billions of borrowed money each month to try to prop up a corrupt regime to steal their oil. It is not working and it is never going to work. It’s time to throw in the towel and come home. The “terrorists” won’t win. We will be taking away their avenue of recruiting new terrorists. The new “terrorists” we have created by invading Iraq will still be there, but at least we won’t be creating new ones if we leave.
January 26th, 2008 at 3:37 pmThe other day Frank M. on another thread said if we withdraw from Iraq, it will have been “all for nothing.” I posted the following in response:
All for nothing?? Let’s see…
1. Rid Iraq of WMDs, particularly those of the nuke type. Check.
2. Rid Iraq of an evil dictator. Check.
3. Free the Iraqi people. Check.
4. Remove Iraqi threat to its neighbors. Check.
5. Plant seeds of democracy in Iraq. Check.
6. Hold elections in Iraq. Check.
That’s a minimum of 6 goals we’ve reached in 5 years.
As for the insurgents (you mean terrorists, right? Or are they one and the same in your mind?) following us here to fight, why would they? Hell, if they wanted to fight us (meaning you and me) here, they’d already be here wreaking havoc. If they are wanting to destroy America and take away our freedoms, don’t you think they are kinda wasting their time in Iraq? Just what freedoms do you think the terrorists in Iraq want to take away from, say, Jim Taylor living in Austin, TX?
January 26th, 2008 at 5:00 pmWhat’s more of an insult is to suggest that a surge, which has reduced deaths in Iraq, has failed. Also insulting is the idea that if we withdraw fewer people will die.
January 26th, 2008 at 7:14 pmRe: 55
What political process are you observing? They shut down in August. The re-Baathification law? That’s not a consensus.
Working together as Iraqis rather than Sunni or Shi’ite is not making significant progress, even over a year of the surge. There’s so much disagreement it’s like Iran and Iraq working together, two states that fought and didn’t bury the hatchet at all. They could go to Switzerland for a month in total seclusion and come back with no progress, or worse.
It’s not all about security, nor can the U.S. fix everything.
January 26th, 2008 at 7:40 pmAlmost 500 people killed in 3 1/2 weeks in a population of 25 million and shrinking (might be 22 million now), is the equivalent of 6000 people in the US, or two 9/11 events, every month.
How many need to die for us to recognize the bleeding?.
January 26th, 2008 at 9:05 pmComment by Kilo — January 27, 2008 @ 8:15 am
2007 was the deadliest year of the war for American troops, and you want to b___ about the fact that TP doesn’t trend declines (monthly, weekly, daily) in deaths?
The yearly total means nothing to you, does it, when you can pick out a certain month from one year that had a lower death toll than the same time period from a previous year.
January 27th, 2008 at 9:13 pmWhy do we have to chose between yearly deaths and monthly ones? Let’s get all the information out there, and I think we’ll see that while you are right on the ‘07 death toll, a lot of that had to do with increased troops flooding into dangerous areas – the “clear” part of the ‘clear, hold and build’ strategy and is finally being implemented properly. You cannot pooh-pooh the fact that there was a substantial decline in deaths in the latter half of 2007. If you want to have a serious policy debate, let’s have all the data out there so we can confront whether the surge policy has been working.
January 28th, 2008 at 2:13 amComment by Kilo — January 27, 2008 @ 11:39 pm
When the media reports declines in deaths, the warmongers start yelling “We are winning the war!” Yet when deaths increase, all they can say is, “Give us 6 more months.” At the beginning of 2007, around the time of the surge, we were told that they wouldn’t be able to gauge the success of the surge until September. Yet when we arrived at that point, Petraeus wanted 6 more months. Now, 4 months into those 6 months, he is saying that we won’t be able to recognize that we’ve reached a turning point until 6 months after it’s actually happened. So, if we actually reached a turning point back in September, we won’t know it until March of this year. However, if signs of a turning point in September are erased in the intervening months, then…yes, you guessed it…the clock will be reset and we’ll have to wait another 6 months.
January 28th, 2008 at 9:41 amComment by thirdparty — January 28, 2008 @ 2:13 am
Seeing as how we have not had any serious political reconciliation (one of the two goals of the “surge” according to President Bush, and one that the surge supporters have conveniently dropped), it’s a bit premature to declare the surge a success, wouldn’t you say?
January 28th, 2008 at 9:57 amWords like “success” and “working” are just semantics, first of all. But, yes, I would describe it as successful because it created the breathing space that many doubted could be created. Now the Iraqis are trying to make reconciliation happen, and, let’s face it, it won’t be easy. But I think we should give them a reasonable shot, and my argument is that withdrawal immediately closes that breathing space they have now. I’m also familiar with the arguments TP and others have made about the recent de-Baathification law, but I’ve looked at it carefully and the consensus seems to be that what matters is implementation – it could be an improvement or a regression, in other words.
Still, economic and political progress has occurred locally, in part due to security gains. One good example is that, despite a failure to codify oil revenue redistribution, those revenues are being distributed across the country anyway, with a lot of it (I believe nearly $300 million) going to Anbar. That’s good news.
In terms of “serious” political reconciliation, we shall see. But impatience is not a virtue, in this case, unless we believe withdrawal will be an improvement (both short-term and long-term) on the status quo.
January 28th, 2008 at 8:17 pmComment by thirdparty — January 28, 2008 @ 8:17 pm
Impatience is not a virtue? We’ve been set up by this administration from the very beginning to be impatient. When you have people telling us that “I doubt the war will last 6 months” and “We know where the WMDs are” and “The insurgency is in its last throes” and (from inside and outside of the administration) “Give us 6 more months” and “We’ll be able to begin drawing down the troops by the end of the year” and Lindsey Graham saying back in Sept. that political reconciliation is “likely within weeks,” why shouldn’t we expect quick action?
But of course the administration wanted to paint a rosy picture of how things would go in Iraq, for if they hadn’t, then the public wouldn’t have been so gung ho for going in.
January 29th, 2008 at 6:15 pmBesides, you had two goals, the latter of which will decide the fate of the Iraqi nation. If anything, the surge has been a partial success.
January 29th, 2008 at 6:18 pmI understand impatience with the administration. I’m suggesting we have patience with the Iraqi government.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:20 pm