Petraeus: US Surge Goals Being Met

  • News
  • Thread starter Futobingoro
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Goals
In summary, the military objectives of the surge in Iraq, as reported by the New York Times and ABC articles, are being met in terms of a decrease in violence. However, there are doubts and criticisms from Rep. Tom Lantos and others about the accuracy and interpretation of the data presented by General Petraeus. Moveon.org is also questioning the validity of the surge strategy and the exclusion of certain types of violence in the reported statistics. There is a call for an honest assessment of the situation and a need for political and social solutions to address the ongoing conflict in Iraq.
  • #1
Futobingoro
Full quote:
As a bottom line up front, the military objectives of the surge are, in large measure, being met.

NY Times article

ABC article, with the Petraeus slides

On the other hand (from ABC article):

Rep. Tom Lantos:
I don't buy it.

What conclusion is to be drawn from this? Are these figures indicative of progress in Iraq? Or has Petraeus "cooked the books" as some have suggested?

My analysis:

Slide 3: I do not see any manipulation of data here. All the bars seem to represent 21 day periods, and there are enough data points to suggest an overall decline in violence.

Slide 4: Inconclusive. There was a marked decrease in civilian casualties prior to the surge.

Slide 7: Few data points, but suggest a decrease in IEDs since the start of the surge.

Slide 8: Again, inconclusive. Anbar attacks had already begun a downward trend prior to the surge.

Slide 9: I can't read any effect of the surge here.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Well, I can appreciate Lantos's skepticism after being told for 4 years that the US was being successful in Iraq, when all the while the insurgency was developing.

Hopefully Petraeus is being straightforward, which he seems to be.

At least the levels of violence are down, rather than up, but it is premature to tell if this is an interim/temporary situation. Insurgent activities wax and wane.
 
  • #3
I mostly agree...with the following additional comments.
Futobingoro said:
My analysis:

Slide 3: I do not see any manipulation of data here. All the bars seem to represent 21 day periods, and there are enough data points to suggest an overall decline in violence.
It shows an overall decline in "attacks." "Violence" is defined in the bottom of slide 8.

Slide 4: Inconclusive. There was a marked decrease in civilian casualties prior to the surge.

Slide 7: Few data points, but suggest a decrease in IEDs since the start of the surge.

Slide 8: Again, inconclusive. Anbar attacks had already begun a downward trend prior to the surge.
The arrows that have been superimposed on the data are nothing if not misleading. I could just as easily draw oppositely trending arrows for Ninewah, and they would be mathematically as irrelevant as the ones drawn in the slide! This is totally cheap, dishonest, and downright insulting! :yuck:

Here's what you could get when you play the arrow game with sectarian deaths in Iraq:
http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/1983/cheapxf4.jpg [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
Have you see the ad by Move-On?

Violence is down only if you accept the redefinition which excludes sectarian violence (civil war), civilians killed by car bombs and getting shot in the face. Some weird math, but what ever works for you.

http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html [Broken]
Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed.
GAO report, 9/4/07
NIE report, 8/23/07
Jones report, CSIS, 9/6/07

Yet the General claims a reduction in violence. That’s because, according to the New York Times, the Pentagon has adopted a bizarre formula for keeping tabs on violence. For example, deaths by car bombs don’t count.
“Time to Take a Stand,” by Paul Krugman. 9/7/07

The Washington Post reported that assassinations only count if you're shot in the back of the head -- not the front.
“Experts Doubt Drop in Violence in Iraq,” by Karen DeYoung. 9/6/07 l

According to news reports, there have been more civilian deaths and more American soldier deaths in the past three months than in any other summer we’ve been there.
The Associated Press, “Violence Appears to Be Shifting from Baghdad.” 8/25/07
National Public Radio, “Statistics the Weapon of Choice in Surge Debate,” by Guy Raz. 9/6/07
Associated Press, “Key Figures About Iraq Since the War Began in 2003.” 9/5/07
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
kach22i said:
Have you see the ad by Move-On?

Violence is down only if you accept the redefinition which excludes sectarian violence (civil war), civilians killed by car bombs and getting shot in the face. Some weird math, but what ever works for you.

http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html [Broken]

The people at moveon.org seem just as radical as those we are fighting.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
Greg Bernhardt said:
The people at moveon.org seem just as radical as those we are fighting.

Worse even. They do not care whether they are right or wrong. They are simply anti Republican. US partican politics has no place in Iraq.
 
  • #7
That's what happens when you disenfranchise 30% of the country with 7 years of lies and abuses of power.
 
  • #8
Moveon is certainly a partisan organization.

US partican politics has no place in Iraq.
That goes both ways or to both sides of the aisle. Bush's teams in Iraq (including the CPA under Bremer) basically excluded anyone, even more qualified people, in favor of those who supported or agreed with Bush and his allies.


Certainly many are expected to be cynical of Bush and his administration, and rightfully so given recent history and the unnecessary disaster the Iraq quickly became and still is.


I would like to see an honest assessment of the situation. But is that possible?


I would like to hear from Petraeus regarding the numbers and what was left out, and why.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
kach22i said:
Have you see the ad by Move-On?

Violence is down only if you accept the redefinition which excludes sectarian violence (civil war), civilians killed by car bombs and getting shot in the face. Some weird math, but what ever works for you.
What is discouraging about this is that as neighborhoods get purged of members of sects who are in the minority, the level of violence should go down, since there are fewer people to target. Instead, our administration has to resort to cherry-picking data (excluding killings by method, for instance) to paint even the very bleak picture they presented this week. The Surge is not working. It's going to be really tough to make anything work in the region, but the number one tactic should be to ask all regional players to help forge a political/social situation in which the warring factions in Iraq can be assured first that they are not going to be wiped out by militias, and second, that even if they have minority status, they will not be subject to mob rule by the majority. When I say regional players, I mean ALL of the countries bordering Iraq, including the ones that Bush refuses to talk to. They all have a vested interest in living next to a stable, productive trading partner, instead of having to worry about the violence spreading region-wide.
 
  • #10
What? Moveon is worse that al Qaeda, suicide bombers and mass execution squads? Really? And how about an argument to support that? And how is any of this relevant to the thread? Come on, folks...let's not lose perspective. Besides, what is so radical about stating the obvious - it's clear that Petraeus has dressed the data to give the administration's stand more credibility.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
It does seem strange to exclude car bombs and to categorize based upon bullet wounds to the front/back of the head. The latter case may actually make sense, though, as the prevalence of execution-style sectarian killings could mean that the majority of bodies found with bullet wounds to the back of the head are indeed sectarian-related. That isn't to say, however, that a frontal gunshot wound couldn't have also come from sectarian violence (gunfights and the like).

Krugman's "Time to Take a Stand" article (referenced in the MoveOn quote) mentions how the daily average of civilian deaths is "almost twice its average pace from last year." One can actually use Petraeus's own slide (#4) to make that argument. The average rate of civilian deaths for 2007 is at least slightly higher than that of 2006, due largely to the fact that civilian deaths started low (relative to the graph) and ended high in 2006. The data for 2007 have been weighted upwards by that high starting point. Consider how when a man climbs a ladder, his average height during the entire ascent will surely be lower than that of the first three quarters of his descent. Now, I am not using the ladder analogy to predict future changes in Iraq, but I believe that from a statistical perspective, it shows how Krugman is saying that 2006 (during which the death rate increased) was better than 2007 (during which the death rate has decreased).

Krugman also states that "a recent assessment by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office found no decline in the average number of daily attacks." This is presumably a reference to the same report quoted in Karen DeYoung's "Experts Doubt Drop in Violence in Iraq" (the other article in the MoveOn quote). DeYoung quotes the GAO report as having found that "[the] average number of daily attacks against civilians [has] remained unchanged from February to July 2007." Slide 3 of Petraeus's briefing is actually in concurrence with this as well. One can see that from February to July 2007, there are small fluctuations, but no downward trend. According to DeYoung, the military thinks the GAO's conclusion is skewed "because it did not include dramatic, up-to-date information from August." Indeed, once the data for August are added, there is the suggestion of a downward trend.

The impression I received from DeYoung's article is that the various government agencies and departments can't agree on anyone method for statistics regarding Iraq, and that numerous conflicting reports are issued as a result.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
One very bad facet of the sectarian violence in Iraq is that many well-educated, professional, or simply well-to-do people have bailed out, leaving the country in the hands of politicians and zealots motivated by the opportunity to cement gains for their sects or accumulate personal power and wealth. These refugees will not return until they can be assured of the safety of their families and themselves, depriving Iraq of skilled engineers, physicians, professors, etc. There is a whole lot more damage being done to Iraq than can be described with a Viet-Nam-like "body count" and Petraeus knows this, though he will never buck the Bush administration by mentioning it. When you strip the professionals and academics out of a country, the remaining inhabitants suffer immensely.
 
  • #13
We seem to be in a two steps forward and one step back mode. The Sheik who was leading the Sunni's against al qaida was assinated yesterday.

However, the assassination Thursday of Sunni sheik Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha, who took on al-Qaida, was a setback for U.S. efforts, serving notice of the danger facing people who cooperate with coalition forces.

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/view.bg?articleid=1031280 [Broken]

The sheik shown in the link was shaking Bush's hand just a week ago.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
I don't know if this was ever mentioned by Petraeus or Crocker in the Senate hearing, but a major reason for any declines in sectarian violence in some regions is the escalated segregation that has resulted from the violence (largely following events like the Samarra bombing). Vast numbers of Sunnis have fled Shia "dominated" (this need not be numerical domination; political power is very important) areas since February, giving the Shiite death squads fewer targets to take out. Baghdad has morphed from 65% Sunni to 75% Shia.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/24/w...8fc6ac9a1c2f85&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Futo said:
Indeed, once the data for August are added, there is the suggestion of a downward trend.
And then there's this:
LATimes said:
BAGHDAD -- Bombings, sectarian slayings and other violence related to the war killed at least 1,773 Iraqi civilians in August, the second month in a row that civilian deaths have risen, according to government figures obtained Friday.

In July, the civilian death toll was 1,753, and in June it was 1,227. The numbers are based on morgue, hospital and police records and come from officials in the ministries of Health, Defense and the Interior.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-violence1sep01,0,3069115.story [Broken]

Not to belabor the point, but in fact...
The Associated Press last week counted 1,809 civilian deaths in August, making it the highest monthly total this year, with 27,564 civilians killed overall since the AP began collecting data in April 2005.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/05/AR2007090502466_pf.html

How can you be climbing down the ladder if you find yourself on a higher rung than you've ever been on before you started the "descent"?

Also, the results in al Anbar are mostly unrelated to the surge and almost a direct result of al Qaeda pissing off the local militias to the extent that they decided to make a peace deal with the US. Now the US military really has a great opportunity to actually win over hearts of the locals there - currently a difficult task in most other (non-Kurdish) parts of Iraq.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
Bush need to get more people in there like Petraeus---like an Octavius, and maybe a Quintus, or a Latavius--or an Augustus, or two.
 
  • #16
For the past ten days or so I've been getting in my e-mail as a heads up (from the Democratic party) notices that funny math is being used in the Petraeus report. Each e-mail was supported with links to articles in the NY Times, LA Times and other papers. Perhaps it was lazy of me just to reference Move-On, which is using many of the same references. Move-On is not the bad guy just because they give you facts others choose to leave out. If the truth is a bias, then we are all in a heap of trouble.

Don't kill the messenger because you don't like the message!

Regarding what can be done about the mess over there, I wrote this elsewhere...

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/showthread.php?t=365672&highlight=debate
kach22i said:
I have yet to see any new ideas beside stay the course and bleed, or leave altogether.

THE BIG IDEA:

Turkey becomes an official liaison/mentor for a Kurdish state within an Iraqi federation.

Syria and Saudi Arabia become an official liaison/mentor for a Sunni state within an Iraqi federation.

Iran becomes an official liaison/mentor for a Shia state within an Iraqi federation.

Make all the bad guys and outside influences mainstream, official and monitored (UN?).

Just a crazy idea but I think Muslims should deal with their own problems and leave the west of it.

Traditionally the west has done everything possible to keep a united middle east from forming, even before the creation of Israel. This too must change.

kach22i said:
Greece was made the liaison/mentor for Turkey to enter the European Union.....provide a format for former enemies to cooperate, it's worked many times throughout history.

Hasn't it?

All the countries I've listed are the most likely to screw it up for that paticular ethnic/religoius sect. Instead of keeping them at bay, open the doors and be open about it all.

Open doors let in fresh air.

kach22i said:
We just need some leadership which can see the alternatives.

I'm going to post the idea over at Bill Richardson's site (if I can) and try to get some feedback.

I don't think a classic Libertarian/Ron Paul "hands off" foreign policy is needed in these times, but I love what he has had to say so far.

Yes, I quote myself, I have no shame...retyping the same stuff over gives me no joy.
 
  • #17
Gokul43201 said:
Also, the results in al Anbar are mostly unrelated to the surge and almost a direct result of al Qaeda pissing off the local militias to the extent that they decided to make a peace deal with the US. Now the US military really has a great opportunity to actually win over hearts of the locals there - currently a difficult task in most other (non-Kurdish) parts of Iraq.

There has to be some effective and lasting strategy involved in winning over the hearts of the locals, especially in light of the fact that they hate us.

In Vietnam, where the populace didn't necessarily hate us, we resorted to assassinating local leaders and blaming the VC.

Hopefully we learned a lesson in Southeast Asia and won't be doing stupid things like that in Iraq.:rolleyes:
 
  • #18
edward said:
Hopefully we learned a lesson in Southeast Asia and won't be doing stupid things like that in Iraq.:rolleyes:
I don't think there's going to be any of that in Anbar. There's a real opportunity to make good progress starting from there...and I sure hope someone's working their ass off trying to figure out the best way to make this work.
 
  • #19
Ivan Seeking said:
That's what happens when you disenfranchise 30% of the country with 7 years of lies and abuses of power.

Bush has effectively destroyed the party base. We are leaving in droves. I wouldn't attribute moveon's fanaticism to that though since they were formed during the Clinton years
 
  • #20
Astronuc said:
Moveon is certainly a partisan organization.

That goes both ways or to both sides of the aisle. Bush's teams in Iraq (including the CPA under Bremer) basically excluded anyone, even more qualified people, in favor of those who supported or agreed with Bush and his allies.


Certainly many are expected to be cynical of Bush and his administration, and rightfully so given recent history and the unnecessary disaster the Iraq quickly became and still is.


I would like to see an honest assessment of the situation. But is that possible?


I would like to hear from Petraeus regarding the numbers and what was left out, and why.

Oh I agree totally. I also find it interesting that the only success we have had is when we work with local leaders. We tried to institute a strong central government. Wrong approach both there and here. The powers that be have no desire to recognize that though.
 
  • #21
kach22i said:
Each e-mail was supported with links to articles in the NY Times, LA Times and other papers. Perhaps it was lazy of me just to reference Move-On, which is using many of the same references. Move-On is not the bad guy just because they give you facts others choose to leave out. If the truth is a bias, then we are all in a heap of trouble.

I don't trust the NY or LA Times any more than I trust Move-On. They do not necessarily give the truth either and they are just as partisan.
 
  • #22
scpg02 said:
I don't trust the NY or LA Times any more than I trust Move-On. They do not necessarily give the truth either and they are just as partisan.
Those papers have given Bush, Cheney, et al a free ride on their lies about WMD's, their repeated assertions that the Iraqis attacked the US on 9/11, their lies that Iraq had tried to buy uranium ore from Niger, etc. These same papers are also giving Bushco a free ride as they propagandize in preparation for a massive air-war against Iran. There is no "liberal media" left in the US, apart from small organizations like Democracy Now. Large corporations control the news outlets, and they pander to the conservatives. When they present "both sides" of a story, they routinely simplify into "us vs them" arguments like you see on the Sunday morning spin shows, regardless of which "side" of the argument has actual facts backing it. The traditional role of the news media has been abandoned. No longer do they spend time, money, and resources researching and developing stories and calling crooks and cheats to task. Instead, they sit back passively, comfortable in their monopolistic roles, parroting the stories that are fed to them by their "sources". Many people in the US are convinced that Iraq had WMDs and that Iraq was involved in the attacks of 9/11. Why? Because Bushco and their media friends at Fox and other outlets repeat these lies (or variations thereof) on every possible occasion, and the press does not bother to call them on it and report the truth.

Every time some conservative flack says "cut and run", "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here", "setting a surrender date", ask yourself "Who is benefiting from this aggression against a nation that had no hand in 9/11, and why are these people pushing to keep the aggression going?" If you follow the money, you will have your answer. The constant "patriotic" jingoism by this administration and their lackeys is a transparent cover for the perpetuation of a very profitable exercise for defense contractors. Why did Cheney not divest himself of his interests in Halliburton when taking office? Follow the money. Imperialistic wars are fought for money, not for peace, freedom, security, democracy...just money. All else is window dressing and misdirection. "We need at least 20 more flags behind the president during this presentation..."
 
  • #23
turbo-1 said:
Those papers have given Bush, Cheney, et al a free ride on their lies about WMD's, their repeated assertions that the Iraqis attacked the US on 9/11, their lies that Iraq had tried to buy uranium ore from Niger, etc. These same papers are also giving Bushco a free ride as they propagandize in preparation for a massive air-war against Iran. There is no "liberal media" left in the US.....The traditional role of the news media has been abandoned. No longer do they spend time, money, and resources researching and developing stories and calling crooks and cheats to task. ... If you follow the money, you will have your answer.

PBS had an excellent program on this topic, it was hosted by Bill Moyer. Knight Ridder's articles were not being picked up because people at the top of the news business did not want to be ostracized for telling the truth about and during the build up to war.

Perhaps more telling and more to the root of the problem is the "telling of two sides" concept. The age of exposing the truth and reporting it (which is still alive with the CBC) died in America during the Reagan years according to an expert running one of the large news outlets at the time (it's in the program - I forget his name).

Reagan was so popular that when the press reported inaccuracies in his speeches, public outcry (sometimes organized, sometimes not) was so great that the press in general just backed down from their traditional role. What they substituted is a format where the oppurtunity for the opposition party (the Dem's at that time) to expose the inaccuracies (lies) was made. Then as part of this format the counterpoint statement or interview from a Republican was broadcast and or quoted.

Two sides equal was born, which contaminates everything from climate change (science) to politics for the past 30 years.

The concept of two sides being equal and both accurate or worthy of consideration was born, the truth lay by it's side bleeding to death.

I've downloaded and printed out those GOA reports before, the public cannot be expected to dredge though all that stuff. We do need watch dogs at the gate, the press used to have that role (not the D's & R's), the public is reduced to being treated like sheep. Most of us apparently know nothing else and gladly accept it, happy to hear what we want to hear.

The truth is just to ugly, I suppose we just can't handle it - or so they would have us think.
 
  • #24
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MoveOn
MoveOn was apparently a bi-partisan group, which subsequently became a partisan group, which supported the Democrats, particularly Kerry.

Behind an Antiwar Ad, a Powerful Liberal Group
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/washington/15moveon.html


Perhaps it is a left wing version of Americans for Tax Reform (and other K street projects)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_for_Tax_Reform
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff_Indian_lobbying_scandal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Street_Project


As for the Petraeus report, whether or not troops stay longer or leave now, it would appear the end result will be the same - it's just a matter of when all h*! breaks loose over there. The sectarian divisions have been established and they don't seem likely to dissipate. There are many competing interests for power and wealth, as many inside as outside.

Bush let the proverbial jinnie (genie, or jinn) out of the bottle, and it's not going back in any time soon.

Meanwhile -

Iraq: al-Qaida Group Threatens Sunnis
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12797242 [Broken]
BAGHDAD September 15, 2007, 9:59 a.m. ET · An al-Qaida front group warns it will hunt down and kill Sunni Arab tribal leaders who cooperate with the U.S. and its Iraqi partners in the wake of the assassination of the leader of the revolt against the terror movement.

In a separate statement, the Islamic State of Iraq announced a new offensive during Ramadan, the Muslim holy month of fasting that began this week. The statement said the offensive was in honor of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the founder of al-Qaida in Iraq who was killed by a U.S. airstrike in June 2006.

Bush' Optimistic View Clashes with Reality, Iraqis Says
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14442234
Weekend Edition Saturday, September 15, 2007 · President Bush said Thursday night that "ordinary life is beginning to return" in Baghdad. But Iraqi journalist Ayub Nuri says that optimistic outlook doesn't jibe with the chaotic reality of every day life in Iraq.

Tally of Sectarian Deaths in Iraq Questioned
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14379591
Morning Edition, September 13, 2007 · Gen. David Petraeus cited specific numbers to highlight U.S. military success in Iraq. But skeptics are suspicious of the declining totals he reported on victims of sectarian violence, saying the figures do not account for all victims.

US reports on religious freedom
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6995964.stm
Religious freedom has deteriorated in Iraq and Egypt, while China has cracked down on foreign missionaries ahead of the Olympics, the US government said.

The annual State Department report on religious freedom said violence in Iraq was not suffered by just Shia and Sunni Muslims, but all religions and sects.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25
Regardless of who is in power in Congress and the White House after the 2008 elections, we are in for a long hard job in Iraq. The Democrats in Congress will not defund the war, nor will they insist on bringing the troops home any more than the Republicans. They are all beholden to the monied interests who WANT to continue the war and occupation indefinitely because they are getting filthy rich doing so. Here is one blogger who "gets it". Stan Goff is a retired Special Forces Sgt, and his son has been deployed to Iraq four times.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stan-goff/ping-pong-you-are-the-_b_64533.html
 
  • #26
After Speech, Bush Seeks to Overcome Doubts on Iraq
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/14/washington/14cnd-policy2.html

Religious Freedom in Iraq
Will religious freedom be protected under the new Iraqi constitution?

Preeta Bansal , attorney and a commissioner of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, and Robert Blitt , international law specialist and senior policy adviser for Iraq at the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, think that the current draft of the Iraqi constitution predominantly casts a shadow over religious freedom. They fear that too much legal authority is being placed under Islamic law.

Iraq (2002) - from http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2002/13996.htm

International Religious Freedom Report
Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

The Interim Constitution provides for individual freedom of religion, provided that it does not violate "morality and public order;" however, the Government severely limits freedom of religion in practice, represses the Shi’a religious leadership, and seeks to exploit religious differences for political purposes. Islam is the official state religion. Other religions are practiced in the country, but the Government exercises repressive measures against any religious groups or organizations that are deemed not to provide full political and social support.

International Religious Freedom Report 2003
Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2003/24452.htm

The Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein was militarily overthrown by a U.S.-led Coalition in Operation Iraqi Freedom on April 9, 2003. UN Security Council Resolutions 1483, 1500, and 1511 provide that the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) administer the country, working closely with the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC), until "an internationally recognized, representative government established by the Iraqi people is sworn in and assumes the responsibilities of the Authority." This report covers religious freedom under the Saddam Hussein regime, which was in control of Iraq for most of the reporting period.

Under the former regime, an interim constitution provided for individual freedom of religion if it did not violate "morality and public order." However, in practice, the Saddam regime severely limited freedom of religion, repressed the Shi'a religious leadership, and sought to exploit religious differences for political purposes.

Report: Religious freedom deteriorates in Iraq (AP)
State Department finds worshippers of all faiths targeted for attacks
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20773438/
WASHINGTON - Religious freedom has sharply deteriorated in Iraq over the past year because of both the insurgency and violence targeting specific faiths, despite the U.S. military buildup intended to improve security, says a State Department report to be released Friday.

The Annual Report on International Religious Freedom finds that all worshippers are targeted for attacks and the violence is not confined to the well-known rivalry between Sunni and Shia Muslims.
Not exactly the foundation of stability.
 
  • #27
rewebster said:
Bush need to get more people in there like Petraeus---like an Octavius, and maybe a Quintus, or a Latavius--or an Augustus, or two.

He's definitely got a few Pilots there.
 
  • #28
Bush need to get more people in there like Petraeus---like an Octavius, and maybe a Quintus, or a Latavius--or an Augustus, or two.
Er um - Maximus (a fictitious character played by Russell Crowe) or US Grant and WT Sherman. A conservative friend of mine mentioned that it took Lincoln several years to put Grant in charge of the Union forces during the Civil War.

This site purports to tell the real history behind the Gladiator (movie).
http://www.exovedate.com/the_real_gladiator_one.html
 
  • #29
Astronuc said:
Er um - Maximus (a fictitious character played by Russell Crowe) or US Grant and WT Sherman. A conservative friend of mine mentioned that it took Lincoln several years to put Grant in charge of the Union forces during the Civil War.
That's true. There was a succession of generals in charge of much or most of the Army during the war, including Scott, McClellan, Halleck, Burnside and Hooker. The Union had a hard time coming up with a commander that could measure up to Lee and his staff, and some people would say that they never actually managed to do that even with Grant's appointment. McClellan was in charge of vastly superior forces early in the war, but was over-cautious and failed to exploit his advantages, causing Lincoln no small amount of exasperation.

Perhaps the most famous brevet general of the CW was Joshua Chamberlain of Maine. Grant promoted him by brevet while Chamberlain was presumably on his death bed, and Lincoln rushed it through channels. Chamberlain survived and was chosen to accept the surrender of Lee's troops at Appomatox. He ordered the Union forces to salute the Confederates as they passed in defeat - quite a gentleman.
 
  • #30
Originally Posted by rewebster
Bush need to get more people in there like Petraeus---like an Octavius, and maybe a Quintus, or a Latavius--or an Augustus, or two.

I am in favor of , Laxativious , he might help us get the sh#t out of Iraq.:smile:
 
  • #31
Several posts ago there was this quote:
kach22i said:
Don't kill the messenger because you don't like the message!
I believe the "messenger" referenced here is MoveOn. I find this ironic, because Petraeus has been portrayed as that messenger as well.

You may have seen or read about the video on Giuliani's campaign page which states that Hillary Clinton has shifted position on the Iraq War. It contrasts Clinton's comments both from the time of Petraeus's 81-0 confirmation vote and today.

Then (January 2007):
You will take on a difficult role in Iraq at a time of peril ... based on your leadership and expertise.
Now:
The reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.
Certainly, a general isn't insulated from criticism solely because of some vote several months ago, but it is shocking to see how some's perception of Petraeus went from that of a hopeful candidate to a mouthpiece of the Bush administration.

Can we trust the military's statistics? Or the AP's? Or the Iraqi government's? All three have been accused of incompetence, sometimes by the same people.
 
  • #32
Futobingoro said:
Can we trust the military's statistics? Or the AP's? Or the Iraqi government's? All three have been accused of incompetence, sometimes by the same people.
Follow the money.
 
  • #33
kach22i said:
Follow the money.
It's pretty simple, actually. The defense contractors who fuel the neo-cons wanted a war very badly. The Bush administration complied, and they ruined the careers of any military commanders who dared tell the truth about conditions in Iraq and installed commanders who would do as the administration tells them. Because of this, military assessments cannot be trusted. The US reporters who visit Iraq are allowed to see what the administration wants them to see, so their assessments cannot be trusted, either, because they are based on incomplete, cherry-picked information. Members of the current Irag government are feeding off our tax dollars and are motivated to preserve the status-quo, so their assessments cannot be taken at face value, either. Probably the most reliable are the assessments of Sadr's Shi'ites, who have bolted from the Maliki government because Maliki refuses to set a firm withdrawal date for US forces. They want us gone. If we could persuade Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran and other bordering Islamic countries to take on the role of peace-keepers, it would help dispel the all-too-prevalent notion that the troops occupying Iraq are "crusaders" attacking Islam. Unfortunately, this involves negotiating with countries that Bush has branded as supporters of terrorism (he conveniently forgot to lump the Saudis in with them, somehow) and he has vowed never to deal with terrorists, so this option is off the table until someone who is not a blathering idiot occupies the White House.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
Of course we can speculate the hell out of this situation. The main trouble with our source of information is that we are being told the chickens committed suicide by a fox with a chicken in its mouth.
 
  • #35
turbo-1 and baywax, you guys are spot on and still have a sense of humor. It's good to know there is still some intellectualism and common sense in this mad mad world.
 
<h2>1. What is the significance of Petraeus's statement on the US surge goals being met?</h2><p>Petraeus's statement indicates that the goals of the US surge in Iraq, which aimed to increase security and stability in the country, have been achieved to a certain extent.</p><h2>2. How were the US surge goals measured and assessed?</h2><p>The US surge goals were measured and assessed through various metrics, including the number of insurgent attacks, civilian casualties, and the ability of Iraqi security forces to maintain control in certain areas.</p><h2>3. What challenges did the US face in achieving the surge goals?</h2><p>The US faced numerous challenges in achieving the surge goals, including a complex political landscape, sectarian violence, and a lack of trust from the Iraqi population.</p><h2>4. Has the success of the US surge been sustained in the long term?</h2><p>While the US surge was successful in the short term, the long-term sustainability of its effects is still debated. Some argue that the surge only provided temporary stability and did not address underlying issues in Iraq.</p><h2>5. What impact did the US surge have on the overall situation in Iraq?</h2><p>The US surge had a significant impact on the overall situation in Iraq, leading to a decrease in violence and an increase in stability. However, it also had political and economic consequences that are still being felt in the region today.</p>

1. What is the significance of Petraeus's statement on the US surge goals being met?

Petraeus's statement indicates that the goals of the US surge in Iraq, which aimed to increase security and stability in the country, have been achieved to a certain extent.

2. How were the US surge goals measured and assessed?

The US surge goals were measured and assessed through various metrics, including the number of insurgent attacks, civilian casualties, and the ability of Iraqi security forces to maintain control in certain areas.

3. What challenges did the US face in achieving the surge goals?

The US faced numerous challenges in achieving the surge goals, including a complex political landscape, sectarian violence, and a lack of trust from the Iraqi population.

4. Has the success of the US surge been sustained in the long term?

While the US surge was successful in the short term, the long-term sustainability of its effects is still debated. Some argue that the surge only provided temporary stability and did not address underlying issues in Iraq.

5. What impact did the US surge have on the overall situation in Iraq?

The US surge had a significant impact on the overall situation in Iraq, leading to a decrease in violence and an increase in stability. However, it also had political and economic consequences that are still being felt in the region today.

Back
Top