http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7010601489.html "I don't know that the Iraqi government has ever demonstrated ability to lead the country, and we shouldn't be surprised," said retired Army Lt. Gen. Jay M. Garner, who was the first U.S. official in charge of postwar Baghdad. "You'll never find, in my lifetime, one man that all the Iraqis will coalesce around." Iraqis are too divided among sectarian, ethnic and tribal loyalties, he said, and their loyalties are regional, not national. "Senior military and administration officials privately admit their deep concerns that the troop increase will backfire -- and leave the United States with no options left in six to eight months."
The surge (that was a drink at one time) will accomplish two things...(1) help with unemployment, and (2) help with our overpopulation problem. Seriously, with the majority of the country against this mess and no clear outcome for why we are still there, this was the last outcome I thought Bush would select. I guess time will tell.
I think it depends on what the "surge" is there for, doesn't it? If the increase in American troops is designed to provide an effective deterrent against the violence in the streets of the capital, it may work. Its hard for a new government to get up on its feet if there's too much violence. Zogby International's polling of Iraqi public opinion is reported as showing the now most Iraqis want the Americans to leave within a year (about half that amount want it within 6 months). If the surge provides the break in the violence and provides a respite for the new government, it could work. The definition of success in Iraq here at home will depend not on the facts on the ground, but on the political party you belong to. Americans today seem incapable of looking at a current event without their Party glasses on. We will know in 50 years, through the prism of history, if the war in Iraq was a good thing, or a bad thing.
Gee, maybe it's called holding steadfast to finish the job... Not cut and run the face of current circumstances, as many anti-Iraq believers have been screaming. What do you think the insurgency in Iraq wants to hear? They've pressured us sooo much that we're running home (the desired outcome of the leftist scumbags), or even MORE troops are coming? I've said it before, and I've said it again, from DAY 1, Bush said it was going to be a long, tough haul, with no quick victory to be had. Nice to see such a large swath of the U.S. ready to cut and run after what, the first year?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(huskers @ Jan 7 2007, 09:18 AM) [snapback]372026[/snapback]</div> We need to define our goals and I believe - choose a side - or move our forces back out of the al-anbar region and let them go at and when they are done - go back in and clean it up. We also need to lay down the law with the Iranians and Syrians who continue to feed the insurgency. They feel as though they are close to victory -which they are given the Dems control of the Congress and the purse - we cannot cut and run - they will follow us home.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 8 2007, 09:27 AM) [snapback]372432[/snapback]</div> The usual rightard rhetorical sound bites ho hum
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Jan 8 2007, 02:19 PM) [snapback]372502[/snapback]</div> Gee, who exactly are the first to resort to useless insults again?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 8 2007, 09:27 AM) [snapback]372432[/snapback]</div> Yawn. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Jan 8 2007, 01:45 PM) [snapback]372554[/snapback]</div> Is that opposed to useful insults?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 8 2007, 06:27 AM) [snapback]372432[/snapback]</div> You may be right about "choosing sides". There are a couple of factors that play into this. One, we transferred soverignity to Iraq, so our troops are there "at their pleasure." As a practical matter, we can probably force whatever hand we want to, but it would be hard to stay there past the 6 months to a year that the Zogby polls keep showing as the Iraqi public opinion. Two, the violence is composed of both an insurgency and Shia militias; I make the assumption that most of the insurgency is Sunni, but that's just my assumption (anyone know?) The Sunnis are now upset that Saddam was taunted before his execution ... but he was a brutal dictator, and I can't remember another one who was given even that dignified an end before him. The Italians have some piano wire they could have loaned those guys, after all. After the oppression of the Shia and Kurds by the Sunni, I think they should probably settle down a bit if they want to survive at all. Three, if the Sunnis do make up the insurgency, and the insurgents are all defeated, then there is the Shia militia to deal with ... they don't seem that far removed from the Taliban to me. Sorry to elevate the discussion for a bit ... perhaps I should have called you a name or two.
