Is the Surge Working?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Your friend (who has every right to his/her opinion) is in the minority. I make this conculsion based on the fact that the military has the hightest re-enlistment rate ever. The reason being giving the most is that they want to finish the job. A job they believe needs competion.

Source please or I call bull shit!

Somthing that has been on all the major news outlets over time and you call bull shit

That is a good one

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Partioally, but the rate today has never been seen before. And what they are saying is what I will listen to.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[martin-o 0]

Quote

There really are only so many AK-47s in the world.

More than 100 million of them
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47) . Thats a lot of killing before they run out.

/Martin

[Royd 0]

Quote

They are reinlisting because they were well mind fucked by a most efficient, mega-experienced mind fucking machine.

If only the rest of the govt complex could be so efficient.

[Royd 0]

Quote

kill them there, sure - but who exactly? So far we have killed up to 1,000,000 civilians - at least more than 100,000. none of those were or are terrorists

Where do you get those numbers. We can't even get a count of dead enemy combatants, as if it's taboo.

[juanesky 0]

Quote

Quote

According to Sen Schmuck (AKA Achumer), (D-NY) no, it was the war lords in Ramadi and Al-anbar province that made possible the peace the region now enjoys. It was none of us, nor the surge had anything to do. and why is that do you thinK? First of Schumer is a shit basket. But why (there are reasons he says what he says) and a reason he will not give you because it does not support his anti US get himself more power bs.

But what the hell, you already made up your mind. No point in telling you what some troops have seen in there, before and after the surge.

As it seems you have.

Dude, why don't you calm down a bit. I was part of the surge, getting extended in Boquba, while the insurgency spiked. I was making a sarcastic comment, of someone who has no idea what is he talking about. Like many others, I hear so called experts on what is going on over there now.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Sooner or later, AQ is going to start running out of dedicated people and munitions, and at that point, they will probably make one huge final effort. The death toll of civilians and soldiers will rise drastically for a short period.

Just my prediction.

Gut prediction?
Or do you have some historical precedent in mind? And do you mean "AQ in Iraq," or what is referred to as "Big AQ" (i.e., Usama bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, Sheikh Said, Saif al-Adel, Abu Faraj al Libbi, et al, in NW Pakistan/eastern Afghanistan)?

I'm not being facetious or snarky but am legitimately asking if you see a historical precedent or some other basis for the prediction.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

... I make this conculsion based on the fact that the military has the hightest re-enlistment rate ever...

Source please or I call bull shit!

Rush is correct overall. For all of the reasons Jen listed. While it may seem counter-intuitive to some (or counter-anecdote), rates of re-enlistment are actually highest in combat zones.

While the impact varies from soldier to soldier, there is also the impact of the Army's "Stop-loss" program and re-enlistment bonuses. If one re-enlists, there are monetary ($1-10K for most, upwards $150K for highly trained Speical Ops, etc) and non-monetary rewards courtesy of the 2006 DoD Authorization Act (expires in 2009), see e.g., http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/08/army_bonuses_070829w/. Per the bill, the bonuses are tax-free if one re-enlists while serving in a combat zone.

Army staff recognized the need (which goes back to the 1990's; it just becomes more of an issue when you're in a ground war) and made specific efforts; Army staff had a big push on this a couple years ago.

The Army is losing soldiers in its young officer corps, particularly graduates of West Point separating after minimum service.

Enlistment rates are another issue to consider.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nigel99 144]

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ - Number of civilian deaths 72000+ (low figure)

http://www.zmag.org/lancet.pdf Conservative figure of 100,000 high figure of 285,000

Iraqiyun Survey - 128,000 violent deaths (2005)

Note that both the Lancet and Iraqiyun surveys are a few years old now and so I find the figure of 100k a realistic minimum, and would imagine that the upper figures from the Lancet (285k) are probably fairly accurate by now.

I think that the people whos heads are in the sand are those claiming that any "progress" is being made in Iraq.

The US strategy of surges only works locally - so there is an increase in troop strengths in Baghdad and deaths fall in the vicinity (possibly) however they rise elsewhere.

It is a very complicated mess and I suspect that the only short term solution is to empower a dictator, with the necessary military strength to crush the insurgency bringing an end to the war lord type activities. In short Saddam sounds like an ideal candidate

Sometimes it is better the devil you know... and maybe a few lessons that perhaps enforcing democracy through military might, doesn't really work.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ - Number of civilian deaths 72000+ (low figure)

http://www.zmag.org/lancet.pdf Conservative figure of 100,000 high figure of 285,000

Iraqiyun Survey - 128,000 violent deaths (2005)

Note that both the Lancet and Iraqiyun surveys are a few years old now and so I find the figure of 100k a realistic minimum, and would imagine that the upper figures from the Lancet (285k) are probably fairly accurate by now.

I think that the people whos heads are in the sand are those claiming that any "progress" is being made in Iraq.

The US strategy of surges only works locally - so there is an increase in troop strengths in Baghdad and deaths fall in the vicinity (possibly) however they rise elsewhere.

It is a very complicated mess and I suspect that the only short term solution is to empower a dictator, with the necessary military strength to crush the insurgency bringing an end to the war lord type activities. In short Saddam sounds like an ideal candidate

Sometimes it is better the devil you know... and maybe a few lessons that perhaps enforcing democracy through military might, doesn't really work.

I sincerly hopw you get a SH as your leader someday

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Quote

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ - Number of civilian deaths 72000+ (low figure)

http://www.zmag.org/lancet.pdf Conservative figure of 100,000 high figure of 285,000

Iraqiyun Survey - 128,000 violent deaths (2005)

Note that both the Lancet and Iraqiyun surveys are a few years old now and so I find the figure of 100k a realistic minimum, and would imagine that the upper figures from the Lancet (285k) are probably fairly accurate by now.

I think that the people whos heads are in the sand are those claiming that any "progress" is being made in Iraq.

The US strategy of surges only works locally - so there is an increase in troop strengths in Baghdad and deaths fall in the vicinity (possibly) however they rise elsewhere.

It is a very complicated mess and I suspect that the only short term solution is to empower a dictator, with the necessary military strength to crush the insurgency bringing an end to the war lord type activities. In short Saddam sounds like an ideal candidate

Sometimes it is better the devil you know... and maybe a few lessons that perhaps enforcing democracy through military might, doesn't really work.

I sincerly hopw you get a SH as your leader someday

why? you don't like the fact that he proved where his argument came from and also proved you wrong?

...and you're in violation of your face!

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

It is a very complicated mess and I suspect that the only short term solution is to empower a dictator, with the necessary military strength to crush the insurgency bringing an end to the war lord type activities. In short Saddam sounds like an ideal candidate

Quote

Would you consider a Balkan-esque, three-state attempt (Shi'a, Sunni, & Kurd) or even something more radical before proposing an oppressive dictator (US military backed or not)?

Purely hypothetical: A more radical (& also problematic) plan than Biden's proposal - but not as far as dictator - would be to encourage Turkey to annex Kurdistan (thereby creating a larger minority of Kurds in Turkey); let Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, or whoever will take it have the western desert; and let Iran deal with Baghdad & the SE?

Do you see a Mushareff, Pinochet, or Marcos-style dictator?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[tkhayes 140]

the 'up to 1000000' came from a recent independant report. The 100,000 number comes from the US government and many other sources confirm it.

google Iraq death toll to find out.

While the 1M number may be exxagerated, it does demonstrate that QUITE PROBABLY the government reported numbers are low. The study may be flawed, but it is not COMPLETELY flawed. Therefore I am certain that the civilian death toll is somewhere between 100K and 1M.

now if MOST people/Org's think and demonstrate through various studies that 100K+ people are dead, I find it incredulous that people in this forum say bullshit.

Does it really matter that we caused the deaths of 10,000, 100,000 or 1,000,000? That fact is that we are the DIRECT CAUSE of civilian deaths in a foreign country and no one (in America) gives a shit about it.

Again, this is not good for America or Americans.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

the 'up to 1000000' came from a recent independant report. The 100,000 number comes from the US government and many other sources confirm it.

It's pretty hard to give the Johns Hopkins/Lancet numbers legitimacy considering the next highest death toll estimate is only 20% of their estimate.

IOW, the Johns Hopkins/Lancet estimate 400 to 1200 percent higher than other noteworthy estimates.

[tkhayes 140]

then fine - make it WHATEVER number of civilians dead that you want - it is still tens of thousands, and all the arguments I make regarding that are still valid.

Geez - it's somehow 'OK' that we caused the deaths of 'only' 75000 people?

At what point does it become a war crime or genocide?

[crwtom 0]

Quote

I sincerly hopw you get a SH as your leader someday

As opposed to fearing day by day for the life of my family due to common crime, sectarian violence, kidnapping by rouge police forces due to a badly deteriorated public saftey. As opposed to hiding at home from hostilities in darkness and heat since there electricity/water hardly ever works. As opposed to being contantly under pressure by religious fevor, and having female members of my family harassed into confined life styles and stripped of basic oppotunities. As opposed to having friends and relatives still being killed and mamed in bombings and shelling from either side. ETC

... let me think what would be the favorable and resposible of the two options for my family ...


Even if the current situation and quality of life for the average Iraqi family would break even with what it was under the SH regime (which it hardly does) this is a pretty sad statement about how the US took care of the coutry it invaded, occupied, and eventually broke.

Cheers, T

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[nigel99 144]

Quote

Would you consider a Balkan-esque, three-state attempt (Shi'a, Sunni, & Kurd) or even something more radical before proposing an oppressive dictator (US military backed or not)?

My reply was tongue in cheek simply because I feel that there isn't a solution that seems to stick, now that this can of worms has been opened. I don't make it a habit to grade dictators on their good points & strengths so I can't choose the type for you
As to splitting up the country, I really don't know enough about the region to comment. I believe that Iraq was formed as a country fairly recently (early 1900's not sure) and related to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. I guess it feels natural to split along ethnic lines however I doubt that a "political" solution to this would be achieved as my understanding is it splits something like this:
Kurds - Minority however they have the oil wealth
Sunni - Baghdad/Logistic power base the logical "controlling" centre and also a minority
Shia - Majority but their "homelands" are pretty much crappy desert.

The problem with ethnic tensions and democracy is that politics is all about compromise and when people feel that they are getting/going to get the short end of the stick they often take direct/terrorist action.

BTW - Rushmc doesn't need to worry I am from a hell hole with a crappy dictator who models himself on Hitler and have been stripped of my citenzenship because of my race. My brother was severely beaten & threatened with murder because of race and kicked out the country - unfortunately Africa has a lower priority than countries that have the potential to affect the USA's "national interests"

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

then fine - make it WHATEVER number of civilians dead that you want - it is still tens of thousands, and all the arguments I make regarding that are still valid.

You mean the one about the one about leaving immediately? Any idea how many deaths would result from major civil war?

Quote

Geez - it's somehow 'OK' that we caused the deaths of 'only' 75000 people?

I don't know. Who is saying that?

Quote

At what point does it become a war crime or genocide?

Good question.

[Royd 0]

Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sooner or later, AQ is going to start running out of dedicated people and munitions, and at that point, they will probably make one huge final effort. The death toll of civilians and soldiers will rise drastically for a short period.

Just my prediction.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Gut prediction?
Or do you have some historical precedent in mind? And do you mean "AQ in Iraq," or what is referred to as "Big AQ" (i.e., Usama bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, Sheikh Said, Saif al-Adel, Abu Faraj al Libbi, et al, in NW Pakistan/eastern Afghanistan)?

Quote

I'm not being facetious or snarky but am legitimately asking if you see a historical precedent or some other basis for the prediction.

Just lifes' observation in everything from a game of chess, to games of pro ball, to such things as the Battle of the Bulge. When everything starts going down the tube, people tend to go into the last stand mode, hoping beyond hope that the enemy will make a fatal mistake.

VR/Marg

[idrankwhat 0]

Still buying the argument that AQ is THE problem?

[Zipp0 1]

So...... to get back on topic, is the surge working? If so, what is the evidence? Also, what is the criteria for a successful surge?

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

So...... to get back on topic, is the surge working? If so, what is the evidence? Also, what is the criteria for a successful surge?

I guess it depends on who you ask, and what the definition of "success" is. Wasn't the "surge" launched to secure Baghdad from sectarian violence, help stabilize the government and the police force?

edited to add:
It seems like Bush's idea of success is to be able to return to the situation we were in a year ago in time for for the 2008 elections.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Your friend (who has every right to his/her opinion) is in the minority. I make this conculsion based on the fact that the military has the hightest re-enlistment rate ever. The reason being giving the most is that they want to finish the job. A job they believe needs competion.

Source please or I call bull shit!

Somthing that has been on all the major news outlets over time and you call bull shit

That is a good one

I repeated your posting - I thought that would be obvious.

and no, I haven't seen such articles. I've seen many talking about the difficulty in making the recruiting goals. I've seen many talking about the call backs of guys who left the services but are still on contract for years more, though few seemed to expect it would happen. If the retention is so good, why are they being called backed?

so ... if you got no source, I'll stick to thinking about what I read, though the other response was far more informative.

[rushmc 18]

Since is seems to be too much for you take your pick from this

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_qdr=all&q=military+enlistment+rate+2007

All kinds of points of views and sources.

Now I need a nap I am tired from searching so much

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[tbrown 26]

Some friends of ours have a daughter now serving in sunny Baghdad. This, after her brother has already served two tours. Anyway, she sent home an email last week describing what a rush she got out of being hit with an IED while driving a truck through the streets. she heard a "popping noise" and came to lying in the street. Her truck was totalled, but neither she, nor anyone else in the truck was seriously injured - she got off with a minor concussion and told us all not to "freak out" about it.

I think my boss had the best take on it. He said he was pissed off that the troops - our kids - are being sent over there to be nothing more than targets. The Army did their job in 2003, toppling the regime they'd been sent in to topple and they should've been the hell out of there by that summer. But now all they're doing is target duty. And that's not the Army's mission.

These are our kids and the friends our kids grew up with. And they're being deployed indefinitely, for taget duty, by some witless moron who wants to give the blessings of democracy to a bunch of fucking ragheads who wouldn't know what democracy was if it hit them in the face with a shovel.

As an American it really deeply pisses me off.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !