Im sick of hearing how the surge succeeded !

MSI Magus

MSI Magus

CAGiversary!
Feedback
83 (100%)
Every time you watch anything about politics or listen to people talk about Iraq even the most liberal of people/magazines/shows praises the surge and claims that it is responsible for the "peace" in Iraq today. This is simply not true and its both frustrating and disgusting that even the media is hyping this crap. For the last several years the Sunnis and Shiites have essentially waged war against eachother ending in what largly was a freaking genocide. This is the biggest factor that has lead to the "peace" we are seeing today, but there are others as well such as the fact that we switched our strategy to a much more intelligent war where we focused on buying off our enemies and key officials. Essentially we had people shooting at us pick up weapons and fight our other enemies for us by offering them lots of cash. Then you add in the fact that the actual terrorists had already begun migrating away from Iraq(thats the few that were there in the first place)to Pakistan and Afghanastan....and even Africa.

The surge probably didn't hurt, but it didn't help the way that people keep insisting it did. Buying off 1 set of enemies to fight a second site, an already fleeing Al Qaeda and the genocide proceeding the surge are what made Iraq what it is today.
 
I don't think peeople are blatantly claiming there's "peace" in Iraq, especially due to the surge. Many people are saying it's lowered violence though, and they would be right. Even you say it "probably didn't hurt". Maybe you're misinterprating Iraq being more peaceful as Iraq having peace.
 
I think I heard this from Obama, but why wouldn't the surge work? The American armed forces are the best funded and some of the most disciplined military personnel in the world. Adding additional forces will increase security just by that fact.

The real question should be how do we come up with a coherent and flexible plan for removing the majority of troops?

I honestly don't know the answer to that.
 
[quote name='DarkSageRK']What does it say when both camps agree on the same thing, and the only one disagreeing with it is you?[/QUOTE]

That I tend to fall more in the middle and like most people in the middle take time to actually read and then think for myself. That there is something horribly wrong with our politics, politicians and citizens. Its no big suprise that most people are uninformed morons and most politicians horrible panders that are just dancing around issues and playing a game not dealing with things seriously. Its not that everyone on both sides agrees, there are some that disagree with the statement that the surge succeeded and they have been printed and interviewed by the media. The difference is instead of it being newsweek or Fox News and instead of it being the new school politicians its old school respected generals and politicians in places like established and STILL respectable magazines like Foreign Affairs.

Everything I said was true, there was pretty much a mass genocide, we started paying our enemies to fight our other enemies and we began debating and negotiating. All just before or just after the surge began.
 
[quote name='Mike23']I think I heard this from Obama, but why wouldn't the surge work? The American armed forces are the best funded and some of the most disciplined military personnel in the world. Adding additional forces will increase security just by that fact.

The real question should be how do we come up with a coherent and flexible plan for removing the majority of troops?

I honestly don't know the answer to that.[/QUOTE]

Obama has been in the war zone all week pretty much admitting that the surge worked. And adding more soldiers is not always the answer. We are well equipped and disciplined but that does nothing for us whenever those we are fighting are being hidden by local villagers and politicians who hate us. Again it wasnt untill we started turning those citizens against the enemy with bribes and productive programs truly offering them a future that things started turning around.

The stick is a needed weapon.....but its the carrot that turned the war around.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']The stick is a needed weapon.....but its the carrot that turned the war around.[/quote]

So ... the surge (in bribes) ... worked?
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']E...even the most liberal of people/magazines/shows praises the surge and claims that it is responsible for the "peace" in Iraq today. ...[/QUOTE]


I want to live in your reality. Do you have any blue pills ?
 
The surge HAS worked. At least that's what all the military personnel in the field, the media and all our other people over there say, as well as the Iraqi government. Unless you feel all those people are liars. But quite frankly, I'll take the combined opinions of hundreds of thousands of those with firsthand knowledge of the situation over your alternative theory backed up by no evidence. Nothing personal. Of course, there is then the question of what we should do now that the surge has succeeded, to take troops out faster or whatever else, which is an interesting debate.
 
there was never a question about the troops calming things down on the streets, it was the lack of political action that was the unbelievable part. Also we are bribing a whole militia to keep them in check, i don't know how that is considered a victory for the good guys.
 
[quote name='Mike23']I think I heard this from Obama, but why wouldn't the surge work? The American armed forces are the best funded and some of the most disciplined military personnel in the world. Adding additional forces will increase security just by that fact.

The real question should be how do we come up with a coherent and flexible plan for removing the majority of troops?

I honestly don't know the answer to that.[/QUOTE]

Exactly.

[quote name='Ikohn4ever']there was never a question about the troops calming things down on the streets, it was the lack of political action that was the unbelievable part. Also we are bribing a whole militia to keep them in check, i don't know how that is considered a victory for the good guys.[/QUOTE]

Also, "exactly."
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']there was never a question about the troops calming things down on the streets, it was the lack of political action that was the unbelievable part. Also we are bribing a whole militia to keep them in check, i don't know how that is considered a victory for the good guys.[/QUOTE]

Exactly!

And just a few articles to back up what im talking about. The one I really wanted to link that was I believe a retired general talking about the surge doesnt seem to be up(maybe too new?).

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080501faessay87305/steven-simon/the-price-of-the-surge.html
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060701faessay85405/vali-nasr/when-the-shiites-rise.html
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070501faessay86304/bruce-riedel/al-qaeda-strikes-back.html
 
Just heard John Kerry talk about this very issue on Fox News. Nice to hear someone smart enough to talk about the "Sunny awakening"(a term I have heard a few times from a fwe smart people)being the primary factor to the reduction of violence.
 
I wish Obama would actually stick to what he says instead of making things up everyday to make it look like he is more centered.

However that's not going to happen either so suck it up and stop watching the news.
 
I've always wondered something. Why is it so hard for our military to fight rebels that basically have weaponry from the last generation? You'd think we would've conquered Iraq by now and rule it with an iron fist.
 
[quote name='detectiveconan16']I've always wondered something. Why is it so hard for our military to fight rebels that basically have weaponry from the last generation? You'd think we would've conquered Iraq by now and rule it with an iron fist.[/quote]

Guerrillas blend into their respective communities.

The only real options for killing off a guerrilla force is mass genocide or bribing people who know them into narcing them out.
 
[quote name='detectiveconan16']I've always wondered something. Why is it so hard for our military to fight rebels that basically have weaponry from the last generation? You'd think we would've conquered Iraq by now and rule it with an iron fist.[/quote]



Try finding IED's that are mixed with trash, dug in the ground or in t he carcass of a dead dog. You don't need high tech to create a big boom and kill people.
 
As the last two guys said it doesnt take much to fight US troops. We may have the best and most technically advanced troops in the world, but it means nothing whenever the local citizens hate us and are willing to hide terrorists from us. It also is hard to bomb our enemies whenever they are hiding among those citizens.

The IEDs are also hell. My fiancee almost lost one of her best friends after their vehicle got too close to one. As it is he had a concussion and was out for awhile, the guy next to him died as did 1 other in the back seat.
 
[quote name='detectiveconan16']I've always wondered something. Why is it so hard for our military to fight rebels that basically have weaponry from the last generation? You'd think we would've conquered Iraq by now and rule it with an iron fist.[/quote]

Rumsfeld, is that you?

After fighting in the jungles you'd think the open plains of the Middle East land and desert would be a perfect place to try out all sorts of advanced weaponry. Unfortunately a large portion of the fighting takes place city to city, so as far as line-of-sight, ambushing, etc are concerned alot of the same problems exist.

Plus the goal is not to conquer, it's to... uh... foster democracy and bring peace. As they say - the nine scariest words are "I’m from the government and I’m here to help"
 
[quote name='camoor']Plus the goal is not to conquer, it's to... uh... foster democracy and bring peace. As they say - the nine scariest words are "I’m from the government and I’m here to help"[/QUOTE]

Right. The military has a purpose, and that's achieving victory in armed conflicts, which it does with aplomb. But being able to defeat your opponents militarily isn't the same thing as being able to obtain your objectives, when said objectives are more complicated than "kill more of them than they kill of you."
 
I believe the surge has worked. That is to say, it has dramatically reduced violence.

However, I believe that makes the overall situation worse.
Wait, what? Did he just say making the country safer makes the situation worse?

Yes.

Our goal is to not only leave, but to have stability when we leave. The problem before is that the Iraqi government was too dependent on the US for providing security. So we've solved that by bringing in more people to provide more security.

The surge is like a set of training wheels. The kid can pedal as long as we're there, but until he takes a few falls on just two wheels, he'll never get anywhere.

All we've done now is made it harder for us to leave.
 
Soooooo, I guess if we could do it over again, the better decision would have been to reduce troops instead of build them up, so that more Iraqi's could have "cleansed" each other into a more malable and "stable" populace?

Well...I guess maybe that would have worked. But then you'd have the same people bitching about the surge bitching about out of control violence in Iraq.

It's a no-win situation for anyone of any political leaning, is the only conclusion to be drawn.

The only right answer to this quagmire is whatever Obama will do when he's elected, or so I hear.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pretty much. Once we enter the scene, regardless of strategy, it ends in a no-win situation for everyone.

The only answer of course is to not have gone, but thats off the table.

If we leave, the current government's hand is forced as far as getting its shit together. Its absolutely going to be a horrible mess for a long time. The only difference is we arent in the middle of it.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']I believe the surge has worked. That is to say, it has dramatically reduced violence.

However, I believe that makes the overall situation worse.
Wait, what? Did he just say making the country safer makes the situation worse?

Yes.

Our goal is to not only leave, but to have stability when we leave. The problem before is that the Iraqi government was too dependent on the US for providing security. So we've solved that by bringing in more people to provide more security.

The surge is like a set of training wheels. The kid can pedal as long as we're there, but until he takes a few falls on just two wheels, he'll never get anywhere.

All we've done now is made it harder for us to leave.[/QUOTE]

You don't think they've taken a few falls? Wow, how quickly we forget. Go back and read some articles from 2006 about the situation in Iraq and tell me they haven't been through hell. I have to completely disagree with you, what has happened over the last year has made it a lot easier for us to get out and leave behind something other than utter chaos.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']there was never a question about the troops calming things down on the streets, it was the lack of political action that was the unbelievable part.[/QUOTE]

Is that so? Again how quickly we forget (or in the case of some on the left perhaps want to forget):

http://www.boston.com/news/politics...ama_web_site_removes_surge_from_iraq_problem/

[quote name='Barack Obama']"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there," the Illinois senator said that night, a month before announcing his presidential bid. "In fact, I think it will do the reverse."[/quote]
 
[quote name='elprincipe']You don't think they've taken a few falls? Wow, how quickly we forget. Go back and read some articles from 2006 about the situation in Iraq and tell me they haven't been through hell. I have to completely disagree with you, what has happened over the last year has made it a lot easier for us to get out and leave behind something other than utter chaos.[/QUOTE]

Disagree. Again read some of the links I posted from Iraq experts. Again all the surge did was flame the hate between the Shiites and Sunnis. They finished 90% of a genocide and the 10% they didnt finish joined up with us and we bribed the majority to shut up and also fight with us. They also had momentary peace agreements with eachother as they chased Al Qaeda out who they were sick of after they went to far and became an unacceptable presence.

Your insane if you think our mere presence is what caused things to be slightly more peaceful in the last year. We are going to pull out, and we probally are right for doing so. BUt sometime in the near future the genocide will start back up.

The problem is that white people think they understand how Iraqis and other middle eastern Muslims feel. Most of us cant even begin to comprehend. We cite facts by white people and generals who have either only been to Iraq a handful of times or just over the last few years. Meanwhile what the people who actually live there and know the place have to say is completely different.
 
[quote name='detectiveconan16']I've always wondered something. Why is it so hard for our military to fight rebels that basically have weaponry from the last generation? You'd think we would've conquered Iraq by now and rule it with an iron fist.[/QUOTE]
Ask the Brits.

MSI, I think where you'll find most "disagreement" is in the details. First, calling it an outright genocide isn't really fair when you match it against historical genocide. Sure it's been rough, but the body count has been laughable next to your average *insert African nation* brutality, or half of Asia (or South America for that matter) in the last 50 years. I think the "surge" has worked about as well as a military intervention can, given who we are and who they are (in cultural terms).

And really, this whole thread smacks of oversimplification on everyone's part. Making it about white people and generals just obfuscates the bigger problems that are deep, numerous, and extremely complex.

And on this paying for peace as if it's a bad thing, we have a long and extremely storied record of doing just that. Most look at the Marshall Plan, the plans for the Japanese and South Koreans, etc. etc. and say that it turned out spectacularly. All of them started out awfully. I'm not endorsing our current situation or saying that it will be the logical end result, but it's not fair to snub our noses at it as if there isn't a significant body of evidence to the contrary.

Whether our government is competent enough to succeed is another matter.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='MSI Magus']Disagree. Again read some of the links I posted from Iraq experts. Again all the surge did was flame the hate between the Shiites and Sunnis. They finished 90% of a genocide and the 10% they didnt finish joined up with us and we bribed the majority to shut up and also fight with us. They also had momentary peace agreements with eachother as they chased Al Qaeda out who they were sick of after they went to far and became an unacceptable presence.[/quote]

I just completely disagree. Sectarian killings have gone to zero - ZERO - over the last few months. I don't know why you think they all killed each other and that's why they're not killing each other still, because that just doesn't make sense.

[quote name='MSI Magus']Your insane if you think our mere presence is what caused things to be slightly more peaceful in the last year. We are going to pull out, and we probally are right for doing so. BUt sometime in the near future the genocide will start back up.[/quote]

Obviously it was a combination of more troops to conduct operations and a very successful strategy employed by Gen. Petraeus. Whether the violence starts back up is really up to the Iraqis after we leave, but given what's happened I'm confident they will have every chance for that not to happen - this chance being largely attributable to the surge and accompanying tactics.

[quote name='MSI Magus']The problem is that white people think they understand how Iraqis and other middle eastern Muslims feel. Most of us cant even begin to comprehend. We cite facts by white people and generals who have either only been to Iraq a handful of times or just over the last few years. Meanwhile what the people who actually live there and know the place have to say is completely different.[/QUOTE]

Why "white people"? So black or hispanic Americans understand but white Americans don't? That is completely illogical. Plus there are military commanders of all races and ethnicities in Iraq. Please don't bring race into a discussion where it doesn't belong in the least.

Hopefully the commanders over there at least understand how the people feel since they and their troops are in daily contact. In fact, I'd say that it is beyond belief to think that they don't know what most Iraqis feel about their presence and related issues since they must have read that well to have the surge be as successful as it's been.
 
Sun Tzu's Art of War, written over 2,000 years ago, succinctly states that "no nation has ever benefited from a protracted war." For some reason, this is a military lesson that the U.S. has repeatedly failed to learn. If you are going to fight a war, don't do it half-assed. If you don't have the political will to wage war as it should be fought, then don't go to war.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='speedracer']Ask the Brits.

MSI, I think where you'll find most "disagreement" is in the details. First, calling it an outright genocide isn't really fair when you match it against historical genocide. Sure it's been rough, but the body count has been laughable next to your average *insert African nation* brutality, or half of Asia (or South America for that matter) in the last 50 years. I think the "surge" has worked about as well as a military intervention can, given who we are and who they are (in cultural terms).

And really, this whole thread smacks of oversimplification on everyone's part. Making it about white people and generals just obfuscates the bigger problems that are deep, numerous, and extremely complex.

And on this paying for peace as if it's a bad thing, we have a long and extremely storied record of doing just that. Most look at the Marshall Plan, the plans for the Japanese and South Koreans, etc. etc. and say that it turned out spectacularly. All of them started out awfully. I'm not endorsing our current situation or saying that it will be the logical end result, but it's not fair to snub our noses at it as if there isn't a significant body of evidence to the contrary.

Whether our government is competent enough to succeed is another matter.[/QUOTE]

Good points all around.

[quote name='elprincipe']Why "white people"? So black or hispanic Americans understand but white Americans don't? That is completely illogical. Plus there are military commanders of all races and ethnicities in Iraq. Please don't bring race into a discussion where it doesn't belong in the least.[/QUOTE]

I think he means "Americans" versus "Middle Easterners," not "white," "black," "etc." -- specifically that we were unprepared for much of what we were going into (the whole "There's a difference between Shi'ite and Sunni?" thing, for example).

[quote name='dopa345']Sun Tzu's Art of War, written over 2,000 years ago, succinctly states that "no nation has ever benefited from a protracted war." For some reason, this is a military lesson that the U.S. has repeatedly failed to learn. If you are going to fight a war, don't do it half-assed. If you don't have the political will to wage war as it should be fought, then don't go to war.[/QUOTE]

There's this misconception about Iraq, like there was about Viet Nam -- that if we had just let the Armed Forces off the chain, to wage war without restrictions, everything would be wrapped up, all nice and neat; that really, we're having difficulties because we held back; we're just *too nice* for our own good.

Of course this is baloney. Once can make arguments about preparation, but that's not what's being suggested when people say things like that. In the end, the problem isn't that we didn't get in there and blow 'em up good enuff -- it's that, as Speedracer rightly pointed out, the situation isn't one that can be settled by simply blowing things up, period.
 
[quote name='trq']
I think he means "Americans" versus "Middle Easterners," not "white," "black," "etc." -- specifically that we were unprepared for much of what we were going into (the whole "There's a difference between Shi'ite and Sunni?" thing, for example).[/quote]
I know that's what he meant as well. But it is very annoying when people use race to simplify things like that, you have to admit. The race card is played a little too much these days, even where it makes little sense, just for effect. It's like throwing out an F-bomb now. Want to really shock people into your point? Throw race into it somehow.


Of course this is baloney. Once can make arguments about preparation, but that's not what's being suggested when people say things like that. In the end, the problem isn't that we didn't get in there and blow 'em up good enuff -- it's that, as Speedracer rightly pointed out, the situation isn't one that can be settled by simply blowing things up, period.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. The best military in the world simply means your more efficient at blowing the shit out of everyone else better than they can you. Unfortunately for the military, that was never the intent for Iraq. It's quite a conundrum though. Do we just stay out of everyone's business until it escalates to the point of justifying unleashing full military might? I think that's the opposite extreme of what's wise.

I really don't know the answer, but this discussion does illustrate quite well just how complicated international policy has become. We are past the age where it's easy to sell the folks back home on the demonizing of an entire nationality/race.... in order to just unleash hell until they go away. So from now on, all conflict will be a stack of thorns at best or an outright shitstorm at worst.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top