As Neal promised a week and a half ago, it's time to check in on the so-called troop "surge" in Iraq. (For more on how the "troop increase" became a "troop surge," go here.) The president's plan to increase force levels in Iraq by about 30,000 troops was the subject of an emotional debate in the press, and even a marathon debate in the House of Representatives, ending in a resolution protesting the increase. Now that about half of the troops requested are now in Iraq (with the remainder to be deployed in June), it seems a good opportunity for a progress report. So far, it depends on whom you ask; the president and other proponents of the surge have cited Baghdad bloggers who claim that things are better, but it's been a bloody week in which 500 Iraqis and 6 American soldiers were killed, putting military officials on the defensive again. We'll check in with retired Army General Jack Keane: in his opinion, the troop increase was not only necessary, but the only option not doomed to failure. He's just returned from Iraq, and has a report on how it's going.
Blog Of The Nation
Does the General know the answer to this question?
When a Muslim militant forces the infidel to accept Islam or die, does the infidel have to choose Sunni or Shiite Islam right there on the spot?
Follow up: If so, is there any obvious way to tell who is holding the sword over your neck, so that you don't make the wrong choice and end up like an infidel who rejects Islam?
Also, in light of the Muslim-religiously driven blood baths of Iraq, Sudan, Lebanon, Manhattan etc. Do you think that C.A.I.R.'s (Council on American Islamic Relations) assertion that "Islam is a religion of peace," is pure lies?
How disparaging John McCain appeared at the press conference from Iraq. From the sound of his voice and the look on his face, he appeared to doubt his own words. A good chorus the "Razzle Dazzle" song from Chicago may have better fit the bill. McCain has borrowed the Bush tactic, better to give them the sound and images you want them to believe than the truth.
In the Vietnam war, Gen Westmoreland & the politicians were forecasting victory right up to the bitter end.
Is there any mechanism in place now whereby officers can speak what they believe to be the truth to their superiors, without incurring career damage?
The President argues that setting a time-frame for withdrawal of American troops simply gives the 'enemy' a date when they can resume their attacks against Iraqi forces and government institutions. Doesn't HIS plan envision American troops leaving at SOME date? And therefore, doesn't his plan do exactly the same thing while lengthening the time American troops and Iraqi civilians will be killed?
In light of the Sunni-Shiite death-fest, can we reasonably assume that Sadam Hussein's extreme methods for controlling his more than challenging population were justified? Ought we to not have praised him, rather than hanging him? I think Cher said it when she sung, "if I could turn back time."
If the surge is so clearly a good idea, why did it take so long to move in the direction?
Given the ever changing definition of success and the Pesidents commitent to hand his war off to his successor when does this end really?
your guest just referenced the "foreseeable future"as it pertained to the security needs of a US senator visiting IRAQ as being 2007-08... This war has been going on for over 4 years... its not getting any better despite what your guest is saying and I believe that violence will continue to ebb and flow for the next decade at least. Does your guest really think that by 2008 a visiting US senator will not need air support and kevlar vests for protection?
Once again, why are we in IRaq -- NOW?
what's our interest?
When does U.S.A. finally throw up its hands and admit that we need to install a tyrannical Sadam-type to rule that beastly population with brute force? Clearly, they have no idea what to do with freedom and liberty.
I just finished reading the New York Times article The BETRAYED and I'm horrified at how disrestpectfully we are treating our allies and Iraqis that are really working to make a difference. Is a plan to add trust, respect and protection to those that have proven themselves to be hard working and trustworthy part of this plan. Why has'nt the president talked aoubt this?
While I was against the war to begin with, the possibility that we will leave Iraq in the broken mess we created is equally unacceptable. Has the U.S. learned its lesson on doing in-depth research BEFORE beginning an operation, to the point that we are now planning on restoring all the infrastructure that our war has imposed on their country? I would hope that our planning is going beyond just pulling our troops out.
Representatives of the White House and the Pentagon have been forecasting improvements in "the near future" for the last four years with no credibility.
Given the track record of outright lies, deception and inaccuracy on ANY issue relating to Iraq why should the American people believe them now?
There is no real way to disagree with your superiors in the military without killing your career. There is a dominating mindset inside the officer corps of the military that you should never rock the boat and always cover your butt. Risk adversion has been breed into military planning. I believe that most of the true free thinkers and mavericks, which have always been the US military's strength, have been culled out of the military since the early '90's
What about the real question of the morality of the US invasion of Iraq to begin with? The building of this huge US embassy in Iraq is making it clear that the US has no intention of leaving. It is about our securing Iraqi oil for ourselves... why don't we just be honest about it? And we're responsible for the death of thousands and thousands of innocent people for this oil. And we say we're a moral nation?
There is a timeline. With or with out the Congressional resolutions, the election in '08 is the deadline and the Sunnis and Al Queda know it, even if this administration imagines they do not.
What are the chances of getting the success that the President demands? At what point are the chances so low as to not be worth the gamble? I would argue that in our chances of success (however defined) are less than 25% than it is NOT worth the lives and money potentially wasted.
Has the U.S. leadership recognized that this sectarian violence has at this point become more a product of the blood feud (in the historical/anthropological sense) rather than an internal political matter? Do U.S. commanders really believe that roving Sunni and Shi'ite death squads are going house-to-house and executing 20-50 men in a night thinking, 'this will pick us up a few seats in parliment?' Do they think that a Sunni man whose brothers have been killed by Shi'ite police will care if a Sunni candidate are given a cabinet position? This situation has arisen repeatedly throughout history, in republican Rome, 12th-15th cent. Iceland, the Incan empire, and late feudal Japan.
We must find out why NPR is so castrated and fearful to present the truth about conditions in Iraq.Could it be MONEY ? Theres more REAL news on Jon Stewart and Keith Olbermann than on a whole days worth of NPR corporate talking points.
I hate to be the one to point out the obvious to those who have loved ones in Iraq serving in the military, and who believe that we are fighiting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here. You have the exact kind of mindset and mistaken loyalty that an administration of the kind that we have now takes advantage of in order to risk the lives of brave, patriotic, innocent young men and women to attain objectives they are unwilling to be staightforward about or even attempt to accomplish in a fair and democratic way. So many of us hate this administration for what they have done and how they have done it. We believe this administration is selfish, shortsighted, greedy, criminal, and undemocratic. We hate them because we believe they are USING your sons and daughters for their own selfish means. And with their track record, how can we be blamed for at least having doubts. The only reason this administration has not been investigated and probably jailed for starting this war is because their is no power in existence right now that is powerful enough to do so. In my book that makes them tyrants.
Everyone should realize that the troop increases in Iraq had been implemented well before it was termed a "troop surge." One of my closest friends is in the military. He was deployed to Iraq for over six months in 2006. He returned home for less than two weeks and was sent back to Iraq, along with his whole company, in early January. He was told he would be in Iraq until late 2007. How about that for troop increases and quality leave time? The American people need to look past the political banter and grasp the reality of the situation in Iraq and the state of the world. This situation transcends Congress and the President; it is a matter of promoting the sanctity of human life and bringing peace to all.
Apparently the way the surge works is that now the troops camp out in the Iraqi neighborhoods instead of going back to their bases at night. There may be short term successes by doing this, but when they finally leave, won't the neighborhood civil wars return? Also this does not solve the same problems in all of the other Iraqi cities. I just hope this works, but I sure wouldn't bet on it.
Also, today when Cheney is still connecting Iraq with the Al-Qaeda 9-11 terrorists, and with that mentality leading the way, I think we are really grasping for straws.
If only Clarence Thomas had voted the other way in year 2000, we wouldn't have this mess. Even 9-11 might not have happened.
You might want to check the numbers when you discuss the impact of the troop surge.
Probably the best place to fins them is:
http://thestrangedeathofliberalamerica.com/2007/01/09/for-god-and-king-george/
Comments
Discussions for this story are now closed. Please see the Community FAQ for more information.