Surge success "beyond our wildest dreams?"
By Steve Hynd Friday Sep 05, 2008 3:30pm
John McCain has made much of how he was correct about the Surge in Iraq when his opponent was saying it wouldn't work. Barack Obama has been moving gradually further towards McCain's position, propelled there by a narrative that questions his original judgement in the face of drastic cuts in Iraqi violence which have popularly been ascribed to the Surge. He's now at the point of saying it "succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.”
But how close to reality are McCain and Obama's positions? Well, for a start it's unclear that it's actually the Surge that has been instrumental in lowering Iraqi violence (to parity with some of the world's bloodiest conflicts instead of being in a class of its own). The Sunni Awakening and a ceasefire by the Shiite Sadrist movement must also take a large part of the credit and, despite McCain's attempt at rewriting history, both pre-dated the Surge. Indeed, even General Petraeus admits the possibility that, due to these entirely local developments, violence in Iraq might have fallen just as much even without the Surge.
Paying the Awakening movement some $30 million a month to not attack US troops wasn't originally a part of the Surge plan that McCain backed and it's unlikely he would have supported such a move in any case. John McCain has made much of Barack Obama's supposed wish for "appeasement" of terrorists in negotiating with Iran or Hamas - how much worse is it then to bring terrorists onto the payroll? Many of the Awakening's so-called Sons of Iraq were previously members of the insurgency.
Now that both Maliki and the established Sunni political elite feel they are becoming a threat to their Green Zone based power, while the US is stopping bribing them not to attack US forces, the Awakening is in danger of being dropped like a hot potato - and at least a portion of the 100,000 strong movement will return to violence.
Likewise, the Sadrist movement has been described as a terrorist outfit by American hawks yet General Petraeus was generous in his praise of Sadr when he needed the ceasefire renewed. Is Petraeus an appeaser too?
Then there's the purpose of the Surge - which wasn't just to reduce violence but also to give a window of opportunity for Iraqi reconcilliation. That simply hasn't happened. No oil law has yet been passed and if the Kurds get their way it never will be. No law on provincial elections has yet been passed and it's now unlikely it will be before the end of the year. The Powers That be intend using that haitus to make sure the Powers That Aren't stay that way and this is another possible flashpoint for renewed violence. De'baathification is stalled and fairly much window dressing in any case- and the head of the committee that oversees it has been arrested on suspicion of involvement with Shiite terror groups. (Which, if true, puts McCain and his top foreign policy adviser just one degree of separation away from murderers of US troops.) The Sadrists are reorganising and probably biding their time. Goodly portions of the Awakening, as we've seen, are threatening a return to insurgency.
The latest news is that even the ruling powers in Iraq are in an armed face-off. Iraqi troops and Kurdish peshmerga forces are bracing for conflict in the disputed city of Khanaqin, in Diyala province. "The Iraqi army still wants to enter, and the peshmerga is present," said Ibrahim Bajelani, a Kurd who heads the provincial council. "Everyone is on edge. If the Iraqi army tries to enter without prior agreement, we can't be held responsible for the consequences."
This isn't reconciliation. Iraq is looking more and more like a bad spaghetti western, everyone in a circle, hands twitching, waiting for someone to blink - and Maliki seems to think he's Clint Eastwood. Developing tensions between Iraq's religious and ethnic groups are actually being fuelled by Maliki, who seems to relish his new-found perception of himself as a "strongman" figure. As a consequence, the White House is ready to accept military recommendation that significant troop withdrawals be paused until early 2009, despite the possibility of this hurting Republicans at the polls, as a hedge against the very real threat of Iraq exploding again.
So, to recap - the Surge didn't succeed in reducing violence alone, not even by half; it didn't help one iota in repairing the divisions between Iraqis and instead various Iraqis including the Prime Minister took the opportunity to widen those divisions (and by the way, allegations that the US spied on Maliki are unlikely to put him in a mood to listen to the White House) ... now it looks increasingly likely that violence will explode again.
Obama should have stuck to his guns and media pressure be damned.
Login or Register to post comments.
Senate GOP Sets Filibuster Record
If I recall correctly when he was on BillO's show the other night, Obama said the surge had worked so far as the violence was concerned but the purpose for the surge was to give the Iraqis time for political differences to be repaired and some sort of uniting, and that hasn't happened.
I'm sure the surge worked to tamp down some of the violence, but it sure as hell wasn't the end all for the invasion of Iraq.
If Obama didn't give the surge some credit, he would be accused of saying the soldiers couldn't get their job done and you can imagine how much more shit McCain would have stacked on him for that. I think Obama picks his battles wisely.
This Guardian documentary shows the 12 foot concrete walls that have been erected to separate neighborhoods in Baghdad, and attirbutes much of the "success of the surge" to these walls.
Success?
YouTube: Baghdad, 5 years on (part 1 of 3): City of walls
C&L: The surge is working? Hardly.
He should have said "what does McCain care what I think? Neither he nor Bush asked the american people permission to get us into this endless war, and they didn't ask our permission for the surge, and they aren't asking us to sacrifice for the war, or to pay for the wounded troops properly. So I'm calling McCain's bluff. If the surge is the be all and end all of the whole strategy--we went into Iraq so we could destroy the government they had and replace that with anarchy and now we are staying in Iraq to stabilize anarchy so we can get out then I'll say the surge worked and can we get our troops out of harms way? I've got no ego involved in this at all. I said the war was a bad idea, badly fought, for the wrong reasons and with great harm to our country's standing. I think the surge wasn't the success that mccain and his fans have to pretend it is but so what? They think it worked so lets give them the applause they seem to want and get the heck out of there." That's having your cake and eating it to. But the *&^% dems never figure this out until afterwards.
aimai
Once and for all, the "surge" and a combination of other well known factors; can be considered Bush's "force hand" success.The GOP can take some credit for this "change" in the political and military status of Iraq.
Lets talk "change". The Democrats forced the hand of Bush and the Republicans and instilled conditions that "changed" the failed, up to that point, Iraq tactics.
Bush didn't get the "give me the money and hands off on conditions" that he wanted. The Democrats didn't get a timeline ( NOTE- withdrawl time tables are now daily policy consideration in the media; so we kinda did get it).
In other words until the Democrats interjected their "change" did we see any results.
Lastly, that's called a bipartisan success.
I know Congress or the President haven't heard this in a while;but, good work.
dummest statement he has made to date
mc war will use this in negative ads again and again
obama is turning out to just another politician
anything to get votes
vote for some one that cares for you
ie nader
good link here with joe biden but one mistake in it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=955Y3NJTRIE
can you find the misstatement?
ie health care by mc war he did mention it
we imperialists americans deserve mc war big time
Even the generals know they're sitting on a tinderbox. No cover for Rove in Iraq.
During the O'Really interview Obama said it was a success beyond our wildest dreams, and in a sense he is correct, far beyond, and he went on to say that the political end has not been reached and that it was only the violence that had ebbed for now. I think he may have been carefully wording his answer and in many respects he did get it right. He said "the surge was just more of the same" before the surge began and he was correct, and he said that the only way to handle it with any lasting effect was politically and he is/was correct there, too.
here's the best short video revealing the truth about the
mcSurge and the linguistic game they are trying to play
in order to dilute obama's judgement about the war
if you can't watch it now save it...it's very good
http://www.veracifier.com/episode/TPM_20080723
Anthony Look @ 5:
Excellent points!
If the surge doesn't end working out as well as it looks, we could always send Muffins over on a helicopter to kill some people.
Why does everyone buy into the Bush whitehouse term "surge?" Call it what it is, war escalation.
researcher @ 6:
Either you are a troll or you are seriously deluded. Obama will do what he deems necessary to get elected, thank goodness. At this point, in this country with the MSM wholly owned by corporate interests if he says what we want to hear he will be DEFEATED. Get that through your possibly progressive mind, he can not say what we want to hear and win this November. Sad but true.
That's not the point anyway. If we think that Obama saying what we want to hear and doing what we want him to do will save us then we ARE truly fucked. Meaningful change in this country is only going to come from the bottom up. "When the people lead, the leaders will follow."
Our only chance is that Obama will be receptive to the People’s issues when he takes office. We know what McSame’s about, chances are Obama won’t be worse but is he going to save us? No way boys and girls, we are the only ones who can save us. Buy less, get out of debt, voluntarily lower your “standard of living”, support local networks of merchants and services……if all of us do a little and set a positive example it WILL add up to a lot. Make sure your own house is in order and support those who you have influence with to help them do the same. It is the only way and the only hope for real and meaningful change.
Remember a vote for Nader is a vote for McSame. Spin anyway you want, you will not change that fact.
constituent @ 9:
Excellent video! Thank you.
I read somewhere recently that out of 155,000 families, only 7,000 have moved back to Baghdad because it's so dangerous and the violence is still out-of-control. That's less than 5%. Beyond our wildest dreams? Maybe so.
Why hasn't any Democratic politician -- Obama, Feingold, anybody -- simply come out and declared that Bush and Cheney and their minions and enablers brazenly and criminally lied us into a totally unnecessary conflict? That it isn't a "war," but an illegal and immoral invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation? That it has bled us dry both in terms of lives lost, bodies ruined, psyches damaged and money wasted?
WHY?
I've asked this before -- a voice in the wilderness. I just don't get it.
WTF? Even if the 'surge" worked, which isn't clear, it was an illegal aggression which was based upon pure fiction.
It's like bragging that you got more money than you'd thought you would when you robbed that bank - it's wrong from day one and it does not matter how "well" "we" are doing. It is just wrong, evilly wrong.
The "Surge" reduced levels of violence from ghastly to something less than horrific.
Much of this is attributed to using CASH to PAY for an end to fighting. Pay and BRIBE both Al Sadr and the Sunni "Awakening", in fact, in the battle of Shia militias, we have taken sides with the branch closely aligned with Iran (not Sadr's group)
And no matter which of these groups one were to ask, ALL hate the U.S. occupiers and one of them will ever trust U.S. forces, nor should they, considering our track record in Iraq.
In the first Gulf war George H. Bush encouraged an uprising, and then stood idly by while Shia were shot down. In this war we stood idly by why the looters and militias carved up their fiefdoms as the military was stripped of its ranks and the governmental backbone was sacked of all its employees, all to be made in the image of the neoconservatives.
5 years later it is a house of cards.
The "surge" was just a cover. As the post pointed out, those payoffs to the Sunnis as well as other tangible tradeoffs with the Shia groups was the real kicker. Not to mention the fact that several backdoor dealings were done between Iran and the Bush Administration. None of this would be possible without the Iranians help.
There are now rumors that due to the the Russian conflict, Cheney will be meeting intelligence officials in Italy later on. Also in attendance are reported to be Iranian officials who may meet with Cheney. The U.S. has little to bargain with at this point and must cut other deals to reduce troop levels in order to maintain their so called deterance. One such deal recently done was the expulsion of the anti-Iranian, U.S. backed MEK terrorist group from Iraq. This was a main sticking point and Iran wanted them out. Iran got what they wanted.
BigIslandDave @ 16:
They can't raise the ire of the enablers during the campaigns.
Regarding the Awakening: Sure, paying the former Iraqi Army is a good thing. Dissolving the army was a shit-for-brains idea.
In general, invading and occupying a hostile nation will not work in the 21st century. Hell, the Chinese with their massive army can barely hold down Tibet, and there are cultural and language similarities involved there.
.
A sign held up Adam Kokesh at the RNC during McCain's speech...
McCAIN VOTES AGAINST VETS
For the record...
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm...
.
.
How does one win an occupation?
.
By the way, has anyone noticed that there have been little to no threats or hostile rhetoric directed towards Iran lately by the Bush Administration? That silence speaks volumes and also plays a role in Iraq.
The key word here that should be quesioned by anyone is "success" cause for me, how can we call it success if people are still being KILLED ??? sure there are less people being killed..but it is still happening..success to me would be NO ONE is being killed...that i could agree is a success...
Billo said that obama was right on voting against the war but wrong on the surge..so why the hell didn't obama jump all over that statement and say that if he was right about voting against the war...then Mcsame must be wrong about going into war...and for me..going into war is far more serious then the surge because without going to war..we wouldn't be talking about the surge right...
.
h/t TP
Appearing on MSNBC’s Countdown last night, Paul Riekhoff, director of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, slammed McCain for completely ignoring Iraq and Afghanistan veterans during his speech, saying the mistaken background was “about as close as Sen. McCain got to veterans issues”:
Watch the entire interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-i1SKl62cY
.
cheney/bush were very clever keeping the flag covered
coffins from the viewing public....there are many that are clueless about this war/occupation.
i listen to consevatives/evangelicals talk they don't want the guilt the blood is on their hands...some want to continue to be told they were correct about the invasion.
thousands of innocent iraqs have been killed...i have to admit i don't understand GOD's work/intentions.
Like greenspan said it was/is about oil. they didn't like
saddam NATIONALIZING the oil and they didn't like him
getting away from the u.s. dollar pegged oil.
another reality of interest many countries were planning on doing business in iraq there was a lot of international pressure to reduce sanctions on iraq because the affect was having on it's people and the strain it was putting on neighboring countries. this is one of the main reasons bush moved so fast on the invasion.
Embittered & Anti-Republicrat - Max-Hussein-1 @ 23:
Now there you go MH, literally bringing up the "elephant" in the room. For years now I and others have been trying to get talk show hosts, columnists, bloggers and progressives on the street to quit calling this horror show a "war" and call it what it truly is, an "occupation." Had lots of luck with that.
Ya can't win one by definition. But since this has always been about turning Iraq into a Neocon display case of "free market" capitalism at its most imperialistic none of those freaks ever expected it to go this route. They TRULY believed that this would be all wrapped up in less than a year and they'd be happily filling their bloated guts with Iraqi resources. Now they just want to keep chowing down and then hand the disaster off to the next administration.
These people are not fit to be referred to as human beings.
Embittered & Anti-Republicrat - Max-Hussein-1 @ 23:
And the RNC crowd chanted "USA USA USA" in response.
And all THAT did was draw attention to the "distraction" ..
And the camera briefly focussed on it.
Good Work Adam Kokesh !!
I would respectfully suggest that if after five years you have been unable to pacify the capitol city, much less the rest of the country, an effort that has failed slightly less abysmally than another effort can hardly be called a success.
Joe O. @ 24:
That's becuase Israel is doing the threatening via France...
Iran rejects French warning it risks Israeli strike Reuters
Published: Saturday September 6, 2008
Government spokesman Gholamhossein Elham accused Israel of threatening global peace but reiterated Tehran's publicly stated view that it was not in a position to attack Iran.
Separately, a senior commander of the elite Revolutionary Guards was quoted as saying that new long-range missiles had strengthened Iran's defensive capabilities.
"Today, the enemy does not dare to attack Iran, as it knows that it will receive fatal blows from Iran if it ventures into such a stupid act," Nour Ali Shoushtari said in the city of Qazvin, Iran's Press TV station reported.
Western powers accuse Iran, the world's fourth-largest oil exporter, of seeking the atom bomb under the cover of a civilian nuclear program. Iran denies the charge, saying it only wants to master atomic technology in order to generate electricity.
The United States and Israel have not ruled out military action if the dispute cannot be settled through diplomacy.
(continued)
.
Here's a number/serious issue to think about: last year
there were 115 soldier suicides. so far this year 62
soldier suicides.
think about the borderline soldiers. this is a problem
that doesn't get press.
pissed off patricia @ 2:
Incidentally, the first link in this post is to the Fox page where the “beyond our wildest dreams” headline appears, with link to the video.
And you're absolutely correct. Obama did give a measured response (but a very - ahem - quotable headline).
Can you not see the awesome results of "democracy"?
They just want us OUT OF THEIR COUNTRY!
It's THEIR country, their LAND, NOT ours.
It's their ...."right here" scenario.
It's their "Red Dawn".
Our problem, which is "right here", wants to control it ALL,...EVERYWHERE.
It's so "KRISTOL" clear to everybody, everywhere, but our so-called NWO Nazi-like rich, powerfull, leaders in our homeland. NOBODY WANTS IT!
Their greed, their sucess, will be the end of any peacefull civilization as we once knew it. You disagree with them, YOU DIE! Your not "with them", YOU DIE!
It's as simple as that.
.
O.K. then,
Let me make it more palatable...
How does one make an occupation successful?
.
DUH, A HAPPEND THEN B HAPEND THEREFOER A CAUSED B.
Get out of Iraq.
Chicken "Hussein" Little - Not! @ 28:
Couldn't agree more. Less than human, less than zero.
Embittered & Anti-Republicrat - Max-Hussein-1 @ 31:
.
True and that always is the case. However, since the Russian/Georgian conflict the U.S. has kept its mouth shut on Iran. The U.S. has never did that before and its very apparent as to why.
Embittered & Anti-Republicrat - Max-Hussein-1 @ 35:
You enslave the people and take over their resources. Still no guarantee obviously.
thats one problem I have with Obama.. he listens far too much to the right wing corporate media.
.
In all of Johnny's McPOW jubilation celibrations during the RNC...
... Why didn't he mention the VETS?
.
In Baghdad it wasn't any surge that stopped any violence, the city is a prison for Baghdadi's with meters high walls to seperate the warring sects. Instead of dying from bomb blasts, Baghdadi's are dying for a bit of bread, and are driven into despair with nowhere to go. At most, the surge has shifted the dead into another bar in the statistics.
Embittered & Anti-Republicrat - Max-Hussein-1 @ 35:
When oil hits $200/barrel. Doing just fine in Texas and Alaska, thank you very much low information voters.
Obama got punk. He should of stuck to his guns and stayed away from faux news. Did it really matter if he went on Faux news or not? This quote could be potentially devastating to his campaign.
War profits have gone through the stratosphere.
The surge successfully reinstated the iron-fisted rule over the Iraqi people we condemned Saddam Husein for.
why the long occupation
attack....disarm good guys.....set up puppet government
....have huge exodus of civilians by using fear/cut off foods/electricity.....have tribes battle each other
.....set up scenario for oil companies to 'return'....in the meantime....cause friction with surrounding countries
causing a prolonged war/occupation....develop the need
for permanent occupation...the prize oil/u.s. oil pegged system.
Teh suerg wroked!! That's why the "coalition of the willing" is still there! Because the surge worked, so the... forces, er... stay?
.
Cernig,
Thank you for the great article.
.
The much touted Surge must be seen as a success if America is to wage Holy War against...wait for it...Iran.
Coming to a theater near you,SOON.
Chris from Maine @ 40:
that's what smart people do........there get to know there opposition.....listening and following are different.
sometimes i'll read/listen about republicans so i can make an informed/educated response. sometimes it seems like obama is new maverick....we will nothing done if we don't get some republicans involved in the
future policies.
Strange map.
It shows lakes and rivers as colored but doesn't show the ocean as colored.
thepoetryman @ 14:
if you didn't see this post please view the video on the
mcSurge it's very good if you don't have time save it
it's short and reveals the linguistic game the (R) is playing.
Alice X - (Chomsky Nader) - status quObama - change you can pretend in - @ 45:
Think how quickly this would have ended if our country had demanded a law making war profiteering illegal. It was done during WWII, in fact anyone profiting from the war was considered a traitor. What a difference 60 years has made. We the people have to accept our responsibility for this. We could have voted in candidates during the 2004 and 2006 elections who could have passed legislation like that. We didn't and that is a collective stain on our society.
That's why all of us MUST do our part to end this insanity in Nov. Our only chance is electing Obama and enough democrats to override the veto and filibuster and then HOLDING OUR ADMINISTRATION AND LEGISLATORS FEET TO THE FREAKIN' FIRE.
Anything else and hard times like only the eldest among us have seen are upon us.
I don't really see this as a difficulty for Obama's position. True, the violence has dropped but the political goals remain undetermined. Obama can easily argue that much of Iraq is geographically split now along sectarian lines. The Sunnis dominate the west, the Shia the south and south east, and the Kurds the north. Each faction my have some representatives in the Iraqi Government but the Government along with the Army and Police forces are Shia lead and heavily Shia dominated. The Bush Administration gives the appearance that Iraq is "one happy family" but that is far from the case. For example, the Kurds have already stated that if any Iraqi Government forces enters their territory they will be attacked.
If the Surge is "beyond our wildest dreams," and Iraq still sucks, doesn't that say something about our dreams?
Surge, schmurge.
The invasion of Iraq was illegal.
As was the overthrow of the Iraqi government.
As is the continuing U.S. military occupation.
Any U.S. military action ("success" or otherwise) in Iraq is illegality.
The talk here should not be of success. It should be of fucking war crimes.
My heart sank when I heard Obama make that statement on Billo. I thought -- we are so dead. I mean, they are going to move in on that like sharks around blood, and Obama is potentially going to be forced on the defensive in the worst way for the rest of the campaign. And the Republicon master narrative machine will win again. Why did he have to say that?
I remember January 1973, the "end" of the Vietnam war. 2 years later, it all became unraveled and South Vietnam fell in the summer of 1975.
I think McCain had it right when he described it as "whack a mole". I think that there are a whole bunch of moles waiting for us to leave so that old scores can be settled, and the whole situation unravels. The real winner of the Iraq war - Iran, because a Sunni foe has been converted into a Shiite ally.
Iraq reminds me of Vietnam - a tenuous "success" (if you want to call a war priced at $20B, but costing over $500 already a success), but a situation waiting to become unwound.
Republican response to the invasion: Saddam was an evil dictator who killed many of his own people. So, we go invade, kill and maim 100s of thousands of Iraqis and have millions more seek refuge in other countries to hang one man.
VietVet8666 @ 57:
Darn you VV, leave it to you to cut directly to the meat of the matter.
Next you'll be telling us that Bush didn't pursue all available diplomatic options, that the arms inspectors weren't listened to, that there were no WMDs, that we were lied into this illegal action. In other words you're going to undercut all my faith in my beloved government and GODLY administration.
Shame on you, bad enough I tossed my back out yesterday and have been relegated to fruit canning duty but now you've just ruined my whole day!!!
Carry on trooper, carry on. I'm going to go put another ice pack on my back. Anything to get out of the kitchen, my fingers look like prunes.
Ron @ 60:
I forgot to mention over $500 billion cost at $10 billion a month still adding up.
Elizabeth @ 58:
I'm not to worried about that. There are many other points that Obama can make to easily deflect it. One, Obama can state that due to the Republican fixation on Iraq the U.S. now lacks a deterrence. Furthermore, he can also point out that the Republican fixation on Iraq has left Afganistan at a point where that conflict is lost. Besides, the one who needs to worry about how Iraq appears is McCain. The problem he has, is that Iraq is based on the illusion that the U.S. is in total control of the situation. That couldn't be further from the true. All the Iranians have to do for example is mix it up again in Iraq as they see fit. All they have to is send word to their Shia allies that they fight is back on and the U.S. back to square one.
VietVet8666 @ 57:
See my posts HERE, HERE, and HERE from the open thread.
It will happen if we keep talking facts!
Correct. The invasion and subsequent occupation WAS a war crime and the planners MUST be held accountable.
It's just a sad shame that the American Congress happens to think that ANYONE in the Office of the President of the USA CAN commit/order crimes of war with impunity.
.
Ron @ 60:
Yeah, I mean what, were they all like "Saddam, ya got potential, but you just need to go that extra mile. Watch:"
Finally! Someone mentions al-Sadr's cease fire as part of the reason behind the lowered casualty numbers. The ceasefire went into effect in Aug, 2007. Go back and look at the trends around that point in time and note that the "Surge" had started months beforehand.
The true cost of the surge/escalation was the loss of Afghanistan. Until we pull out of Iraq we have no chance of securing Afghanistan or catching OBL and his minions , the real perpetrators of 911.
Loonie (36) calls attention the the post hoc, propter hoc fallacy taught to all freshmen (and should be known to law professors).
Secondly, military folks such as Gen. Petraeus use "the surge" to refer to everything that went on in that period: the Awakening, Sadr's truce, the increase in troops. Most of us mean just the increase in troops. (See interview with Coll.)
Ron @ 60:
That would be OK if the AUMF of 2002 was about lynching Saddam...
... but it wasn't, was it.
That wasn't a vile of Freedom Agenda Powell held up to the UN, was it?
No, in fact, the resolution was about FORCING Saddam to comply with the UN.
Which, funny enough, the UN never sanctioned the aggression the USA took.
There were no WMD's in Iraq.
There were no ties to Al-CIA-DUH in Iraq.
There was no reconstituted nuclear program in Iraq.
There was no biochemical weapons plants, mobile or not, in Iraq.
There was no imminent threat from Iraq.
Sure Saddam was a bad guy... all Deciders are... NO?
.
I wonder what Palin thinks about Iraq or any other issue for that matter? Oh that is right, she has effectively been gagged to give any interviews and we all know why that is:
Sarah Palin will be missing from action Sunday a.m.
"Three of the four now-official candidates on the major-party presidential tickets are scheduled to sit down for questions: Democrat Barack Obama on ABC's "This Week," his running mate, Joe Biden, on NBC's "Meet the Press" and Republican John McCain on CBS' "Face the Nation."
Absent from this list, of course, is the GOP's star of the moment, the not-so-long-ago obscure governor of Alaska who is McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin."
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/sarah-palin-w-1.html
Every move bama has made toward the right has been a mistake. I agree with above posters who correctly label the invasion as a war crime. The occuption oly compounds the crime.
The "surge" isn't working. It's just lull while the various factions rearm, rest and juggle for advantage.
Obama's plan should be to be completely out by the end of February and to bring the instigators and executors of this travesty to justice.
Anthony Look @ 5:
Bull SHIT!
The only reason that Iraq violence has gone down at all is because the military has sectioned off every individual neighborhood in the larger Iraq cities with 12 ft concrete walls - literally turning Iraqi neighborhoods into their own individual Guantanamo Bays.
Part 1 of the Surge Lie
Part 2
Part 3
I'm sick and tired of hearing about how the surge worked. Putting every American in a cell would definitely win the war on crime, drugs and poverty, but it doesn't mean that it wont come right back once the Americans are free again.
This isn’t reconciliation. Iraq is looking more and more like a bad spaghetti western, everyone in a circle, hands twitching, waiting for someone to blink - and Maliki seems to think he’s Clint Eastwood.
The difference is, this time EVERYONE'S guns are loaded.
Ron @ 60:
you know as well as i do the u.s. government and corporations
have been eye balling this for many years. the u.s./u.k. played
iraq and iran for years.
israel's biggest threat is arab oil. NOT saying is the only button
pusher but they are certainly involved.
I suppose Stalin would look at the surge, shrug, and say,"Yeah, sorta succeeded."
Joe O. @ 70:
yeah.........she's NOT ready to be a heart beat away she will be in a couple weeks........but obama never will....wow i don't
get it.
aimai @ 4:
Aimai is absolutely correct. The sad reality is that it is in all the oil company's interest to continue this war for as long as possible. Surge or no surge, awakening or not, Sadr Army cease fire or no cease fire, everybody is being played, not just Americans and Iraqis, but the whole world. America's economy is an oil based economy and America's economy has been dominant for the last half century. The American and European oil company's will do anything to maintain that power here in America and Europe. As soon as they can move into China, then they won't give a rat's ass about our country. (Then we can enjoy the grand lifestyle of the typical Chinese citizen [snark].). That is why those corporations fight tooth and nail - including starting wars - to keep Obama out. He will do much more than McCain will to encourage our government to focus on alternative energy technologies. We are all being played.
Aimi is right, Obama should have called the bluff.
MountainMan23 @ 3:
.
See ALL 3 Guardian vids - the plight of the orphaned children will break your heart. Bright, nice kids, who've seen their parents killed - they are NOT hateful, just state the facts.
Baghdad, 5 years on (part 1 of 3): City of walls
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTMp-YNaDdg
Baghdad, 5 years on (part 2 of 3): killing fields
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Woxu5dwCSX0
One Baghdad's killings fields on the edge of Sadr City -"makeshift graveyards" all over.
The father tells a story of his killed son ..
Baghdad 5 years on (part 3 of 3): Iraq's lost generation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRA3QdvY9rQ
An orphanage in Sadr city, where children speak of their hatred of America. A generation of Iraqi children have been radicalised and anti-westernised by the war.
u.s. got in before other countries got in using peaceful ways.
the u.s. saw it coming international corporation/governments were putting pressure to weaken sanctions so they could move in. u.s. wasn't going to have. iran is doing the same getting more
involved with other countries.......sanctions....they don't want the middle east to be strong due to israel...saudia arabia
My Headline:
Palin not ready to be a heartbeat away from being president
commander in chief but Palin will be ready in a couple weeks
but conservatives obama isn't ready. wow...can we get those same books and have obama study them and test both of them?
I have heard it stated that the violence has slowed down as a result of the ethnic cleansing having killed off the enemy of opposing neighborhoods to the other and not as a result of the surge.
someguy @ 52:
Strange statement since there is no ocean anywhere near Iraq. Now if you meant the Persian Gulf I would reply why bother? The only part of this map that shows the Persian Gulf is a tiny section that to me looks like a baby bird flapping one wing, at the bottom right of the map, just East of Kuwait. Since the countries surrounding Iraq are not colored I guess the map maker was only interested in Iraq.
exactly....
why in the hell did obama say on the loofa boy show that the surge was a great success
it isnt
why didnt he bring up the cash payments?
he didnt
dang it barack....fight for us
constituent @ 80:
It is indeed a shame that our candidates do not have to pass certain test to show their qualification to lead our nation. I'd bet that Barack could pass any test developed for such a purpose without having to study or be tutored in, in order to pass.
Can we believe anything we hear about Iraq? Its a disaster from the word go, and all we've had is spin since it started. Most Americans, including so-called journalists on TV, have no grasp of any culture outside the lower 48, nevermind their politics.
As someone who's lived in Asia for 10 years, I can tell you different countries do things extremely differently. It seems incongruous, but Korea is 5,000 years old, and still ticking, so I just accept they do it another way-- even though I often can't understand their style.
Cernig, this is the best and most comprehensive Iraq coverage on all of the blogs I read. Thanks for all the info.
Obama and Biden sadly buy into American Militarism/Imperialism in stating 'the surge' exceeded 'wildest dreams'. This is where the difference between a GOP or DEM run WashingtonDC becomes very little or not at all.
Go to sites such as Juan Cole's or TomDispatch .coms and it is not difficult to learn that any success this "surge into Iraq" is ever credited with in Iraq since early 2007 has llittle/nothing to do with how Bush/Cheney regime or American court jesters like John McCain,Lindsey Grahm or Joe Lieberman do dog and pony shows over it.
Barack has sadly not been the guy who is taking on the Israeli Lobby or the real American debacle in Iraq.
There is lots of money involved to keep American Militarism at current rates. I doubt if Barack will take this on.
Too bad for average Americans.
By all means keep McCain/Palin out of the WH in November but understand also Barack and the Dems are buying in. Not out.
Uncle Joe Mccarthy @ 83:
He can't. He's an elite member of the Democratic Party.
And we all know the Democratic Party is good at ONE THING...
... COMPROMISE!
He's compromised on the Patriot Act.
He's compromised at defunding this occupation.
He's compromised on FISA.
He's compromised on the definition of a successful
occupationSURGE!He's compromised on Campaign Finance Reform.
He's compromised on staying OFF FOXPRAVDA!
.
I don't know why Obama concedes so much about the surge. The Bush Administration's stated goal of the surge was to open the door to political reconciliation and the forming of a unified government by the Iraqis. Clearly, the surge has been a dismal failure, since those things have not happened. The point of the surge was not to reduce the violence to U.S. troops. That could be accomplished by the troops simply going out on fewer patrols or less agressive missions, which is something I suspect they're doing now. No one ever mentions that. Also, no one mentions that Iraqis are still being killed and blown up by the dozens, so even the latest, lower standard that the surge has "reduced the violence" isn't true either.
And all of this begs the question. We don't have a "surge." We have an Iraq War. The "surge" is just a battle tactic that is a small part of the war. People like General Shinseki and Democratic leaders who called for surge-like or higher troop levels at the beginning were derided, and, in Shinseki's case, fired. Obama must not let McCain get away with substituting the "surge" for the war itself.
Finally, Obama let O'Reilly rudely interrupt him over and over, and all Obama did was stammer and put up his hand. Obama should have called O'Reilly on his interrupting b.s. from the get go. He could have said something like "Bill, you were so eager to get me on your show, I hope you will give me the courtesy of answering your questions before you interrupt me." Obama needs to grow a bigger set, and fast.
If you look at the total picture,the surge has not worked.There were something like eighteen earmarks and less than half have been completed.
Sure the violence in Anbar is down ,but it`s due to payoffs,not negotiation.
The whole fucking Invasion/Occupation has been a black hole of failure. Included in the entire set of failure is the subset 'Surge', also a failure, by association, if nothing else. IT GOT MORE PEOPLE KILLED, ARSEHOLES. Hardly a success.
"Honey, my commute to work this morning was a success. I killed ten people on the way in, and only one was an immediate family member!!! I'll miss Mom."
What fucking war porn perverts.
A good rundown. It's tiring to hear the dangerous misrepresentation of the realities of Iraq from Republicans and far too many in the press...
Here we go again, C&L attempts to analyze Iraq complicated problems by simple statements and question marks. The awakening movement did not stop attacking US because US is paying them, it is they turned against AQ and asked help from Iraqi government and the US. some of them former terrorists, some of them were nationalist who carried arms and others were against armed resistance at all, some of them only interested in keeping their power. you have to understand they are not one piece of opinion or people. they are varied. in fact today they call some local Shiite militias "awakening movement" those Shiite local militias were the idea of SCIRI in troubled areas .
But you're right about the surge is not the only factor and it might be not a big factor, but it was definitely helpful, as the increased troops secured some area, while letting other forces fight in other areas. the forces that stay in cleared area help locals organize and help recruit more local police and Iraqi units
I think Obama has attended one too many AIPAC meetings, he is sounding more like a Likudnik every day.
According to the McCain campaign, Obama's original position on the surge shows that he does not have the judgment to be Commander In Chief. So, what does McCain's support for the original invasion of Iraq say about his judgment and should not that disqualify him to be CIC? Obviously, if we had never invaded Iraq, we would never have had to deal with the escalation euphemistically referred to as the surge.
As usual, the right defines the debate. Is the "surge" working? This debate should focus on the war criminals that lied, used propaganda, forged documents, and terrified the population into supporting the war; their accomplices in the media; and the corporations that have grotesquely enriched themselves at the profiteer's trough. All resources in Iraq have been directed to creating the appearance of success, now largely defined as a reduction in violence. From barricading Baghdad, to paying off insurgents, all efforts have focused on cooling things down until McCain can get in the Whitehouse and continue this war unabated for at least another four years. This is all done without the slightest thought to how horrific life continues to be for the average Iraqi. As long as US troops are not being killed who cares; McCain said as much himself. It is striking but not surprising that in order to know the actual conditions in Iraq one must search out alternative or foreign media. I have yet to see any reporting from a US news organization on these issues. Sure the NY Times will have the occasional story buried in the back of the paper, but the truth remains that every second of every hour of every day, we are witness to our country's illegal occupation and suppression of another country that was never a threat to our national security. It just chugs along relegated to our collective unconscious, while the Iraqis are terrorized by us, the current strongman, the local militia, and whoever else has the guns in this total clusterfuck. Meanwhile, Bush and his cohorts get away with murder while we debate whether the surge is working.
It reminds me so much of the debate on drilling. Again the right has defined the parameters. Should we lift the ban on drilling? The fact of the matter is, there is no ban on drilling. The ban is on NEW LEASES for drilling. The oil companies could drill themselves silly with new wells both off shore and on, with current leases they are just sitting on. But they are not. Why? Because through their friends in the MSM who they are more than happy to lavish with advertising dollars and the politicians they have bought and paid for, they are convincing Americans to support lifting the ban (on new leases). Even though lifting the ban (on new leases) will not effect fuel prices. It helps that the oil companies and their friends in OPEC have been squeezing us with inflated fuel prices. See Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine. The point is that progressives use the right's framing and consistently call it a "ban on new drilling", thus undermining their own arguments.
The debate on Iraq has become, is the "surge" working. Working for what, for whom? Us? The Iraqis? And what about the criminals who started all of this? They sit back and send out their apparatchiks to claim that they were right all along and Iraq is on the brink of being a huge success, we just need to hang in there a little longer. In fact one of them may just be the next president of the United States.
The Surge: A Long Campaign Of Lies
Time has not served this issue well. What has been forgotten plays a important part in this issue. There was a pre Surge campaign to make the case for a need to address Al Qaeda in Iraq. Most Americans watched the campaigned and mistook it for actual news.
In May of 2007, I recall addressing whether there was a significant fighting force to warrant a Surge. After being told Al Qaeda only accounted for 2% of the violence in Iraq, I found it hard to believe a Surge of 30,000 troops the best way to address the stated problem. So, night after night, Al Qaeda became the headline for everything wrong in Iraq. At the time, I pleaded with people to pay attention to the campaign of Al Qaeda's overstated involvement.
There was a ghostly presence concerning Al Qaeda combatants. I have never scene one. This enemy combatant must be camera shy. In WWII, you saw pictures of the enemy -- soldiers, units, combat footage complete with the save the day hero. "WHERE IS THE GODDAMMIT PROOF?" With all the victory claims, there must be some proof of the battles it took to "win this thing." There is none.
What stopped the violence amounted to paying the combatants off. We did not need a Surge for distributing the cash. With the unaccounted for 9 billion dollar in Iraq, there was talk about giving money away from the back of a pick up truck. No, you don't need 30,000 troops to give money away. I guess they could make a case for guarding the money but that too is unlikely.
How easy it was for this administration to claim victory resulting from the Surge. In the first place, they did not make a good enough case to have a Surge. They certainly have not proved they needed on. They usually have a "smart bomb fest," complete with footage of precise hits that claim their targets and the innocent population around it, or should we call the innocent "collateral damage."
One way to win this argument is to address the phony way they went about creating the need to have a Surge. Also, request for battle footage, complete with one fire fight with Al Qaeda. Not "expected" Al Qaeda combatants, but the reason we needed the Surge Al Qaeda combatants.
Joseph
There should be a law that says when a "surge" lasts more than a year, you must stop calling it a "surge" and call it by it's real name: "ESCALATION".
Chicken "Hussein" Little - Not! @ 13:
I think you got him wrong and that his point IS that he is beginning to say "what 'we' want him to say".
Embittered & Anti-Republicrat - Max-Hussein-1 @ 88:
BigIslandDave @ 16:
Obama got sucker punched by O'Reilly and sputtered out a right wing talking point. The MILITARY TACTICAL surge did it's job on the ground. Our troops performed flawlessly.
But that's not the purpose of the frickin SURGE!! Obama has made this point repeatedly.
Saying it "performed beyond our wildest dreams" was a "gotcha" moment by Slimemeister Bill O'. Obama (as far as we know, since Bill O' has not shown the full interview but instead a body language expert
BigIslandDave @ 16:
because americans are idiots, too busy with their own bubble of existence whether its their overworked jobs of long hours (in some sad twisted irony, brought on mostly by their voting records) to be able to pay attention to much, or latest stupid celebrity gossip, or some ridiculous insignificant gossip or crap in their lives, and have to realize how effectively Saddam was fused with Osama in their sub-conscious...
It's frustrating and I wish Obama had NOT gotten suckered into appearing on Bill'O... cuz I'm sure with body language "experts" on his show at least that's an indication that he didn't give Bill'O much to work with.
Thank god for that!
Oh, and in my opinion, the surge ain't done shit but run the citizens out of the area.. Easy to keep violence down in a grave yard.
Now, where's that reconciliation and oil sharing legislation the surge was all about???
Anyone???
Yes when you pay people to not attack you with a surge of dollars and then build 12 foot high walls with secured check points between fighting neighbors. Well. Go Surge! Brilliant!
if you listen to the context that Obama was responding to Papa Bear, he said that the surge is working, but NOT for the reasons it was first intended. "Beyond Our Wildest Dreams" I'm pretty sure was to signify that for the reasons it was justified, the surge HASN't worked, but the side effects, whether causality can be proved, have been for the good rather than for the worse on the whole.
Face it, the only reason to continue this war without justification is to avoid confessing to a mistake made by Bush and the neocons. There is no national interest in the war just party interest.
War? What war? Haven't seen or hard a thing about a war for some time now. Must be over huh? Who won?
Login or Register to post comments.