NPR: FactWatch: The Surge in Iraq

FactWatch: The Surge in Iraq

From the speech:
"While the enemy is still dangerous and more work remains, the American and Iraqi surges have achieved results few of us could have imagined just one year ago."

Analysis:
True, the surge has achieved results. There is unquestionably better security throughout the country, although there are now dangerous pockets of insurgent activity around the northern city of Mosul. But the "enemy" the president refers to apparently means al-Qaida. He fails to mention the rampant sectarianism, including the Shiite militias who have worked their way into the security forces, particularly the National Police. That is a serious threat to reconciliation among Shiites and Sunnis. He talks of the Iraqi "surge," which includes both the Iraqi army and police, but fails to say that the National Police are both corrupt and undermanned. Many leaders have had to be replaced.

From the speech:
"Ladies and gentlemen, some may deny the surge is working, but among the terrorists there is no doubt. Al-Qaida is on the run in Iraq, and this enemy will be defeated."

Analysis:
There's no question that al-Qaida is on the run, heading into northern Iraq around the areas of Mosul or south of Baghdad into Arab Jabour. But the whole point of the surge was to create what administration officials called "breathing space" for reconciliation. And on that point there has been little progress.

- Tom Bowman

9:45 PM ET | 01-28-2008 | permalink

Comments

I would imagine it should be rather common knowledge that the surge's political objective was to attempt to reduce the number of American servicemen's lives lost. Thereby, the White House would get a reduction in the public rhetoric and demand for a withdrawal from Iraq. However, it will be rather difficult ever to reduce the numbers of troops in Iraq if the American people don't continue to express outrage at the situation, which just doesn't seem to be happening at the necessary rate.

Sent by Karl Miller | 9:51 PM ET | 01-28-2008

As has been reported on NPR numerous times, al-Qaida in Iraq HAS NOTHING TO DO with the al-Qaida that attacked us on 9-11. But W keeps drawing links that do not exist.

As the Iraq Study Group demonstrated, Bush lied about al-Qaida connections with Iraq in the run up to the war, now he's telling lies again and I know NPR
will give him a pass.

Our Vacationer-In-Chief is either a liar who doesn't know what he's doing, either way we, especially our troops, are screwed.

Sent by Ron Gordon | 10:10 PM ET | 01-28-2008

Bush falsely paints "the enemy" in Iraq as al-Qaida. Untrue. Al-Qaida accounts for only about 5-15% of the violence directed against the US military; almost all of our troops have been killed by sectarian militias, not al-Qaida.

His remark that one year ago many Iraqis feared we would "abandon" them is also untrue: the great majority were united in wanting our military to leave promptly---60% majorities of both Sunnis and Shias even approved the violence killing our troops.

"It ain't what you don't know that hurts you; it's what you know that ain't so."

Sent by Tom Hagan | 10:13 PM ET | 01-28-2008

B. did not want to set hard time lines and numbers for troop withdrawal. That was part of his reasoning because the enemy shouldn't know when and how many troops were set to leave. He very proudly announced that 20,000 troops would be leaving in the next 6 months!

Sent by Vijay | 11:37 PM ET | 01-28-2008

There was NO Al Qaida prior to the invasion of Iraq. Is President Bush saying that we traded Sadam for Al Qaida? It doesn't sound like we made a good choice.

Sent by AK | 11:39 PM ET | 01-28-2008

Okay, it's getting boring talking about waiting for McCain and Clinton to go at it in November.

Let's get back to discussing Iraq.

People have tried to make comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam. Apples and oranges. Today's volunteer soldier is far more disciplined than the conscript soldier of the Vietnam era. Plus, today's soldier carries ten times or more the firepower of the Vietnam era soldier.

Hence, we don't need a military draft. A small, mobile, well armed and highly motivated rifle squad can accomplish the duties of an entire company of bygone eras.

Case in point, the Discovery Channel has a seried called 'Future Weapons.' This series will give you a good idea of how efficient our smaller, more elite military can operate. Which is a vast improvement over the larger, more cumbersome military of our past.

Here is an example of the Discovery Channels' series, this is about the Robotic Soldier, the Remote Control Platform. This weapon potentially saves the lives of American troops in combat.

Just go to Youtube and type in 'Future Weapons SWORD'.

For those of you who believe that America should not have a strong military, you don't have to bother watching. Vote for the candidate who promises weakening the military.

For those of you who believe in a strong military, you should know what is going on in the world. Then vote for the candidate who is stronger on defense.

Your choice. Be informed.

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 6:11 PM ET | 02-17-2008

E-mail this Page

Recipient's e-mail address:	» Up to twelve addresses, separated by commas.
Your e-mail address:
Your name:
Personal message (optional, 600 characters max):
Your NPR member station:
Are you a member of your local NPR station?	Yes No
Would you like to receive information from your local NPR member station? (see NPR's privacy policy)	Yes No
Please send me updates from NPR.	Yes No

(Information collected by NPR will be used solely for internal NPR or NPR member station purposes and only if you selected 'yes' above. See NPR's privacy policy for more information.)

Tom Regan

Blogger

About Us

This year's election cycle has been one of the most exciting in memory. At the NPR News Blog we'll do our best to bring you interesting, informative -- and controversial -- stories from our own reporters and bloggers, as well as the rest of the best of the Internet and blogosphere. And we hope you'll let us know what you think as well.

Want to learn more? Be sure to read our Frequently Asked Questions and our discussion guidelines.