Surge Faltering, Iraq’s Future Again at Issue

[KenH]

Surge Faltering, Iraq’s Future Again at Issue ​

Updated: June 27, 2007
Prepared by: Lionel Beehner

U.S. military analysts say the purpose of the Iraq “surge” is to buy time to allow the country’s political process to go forward. But signs are emerging that the surge, which reached its peak of 150,000 forces earlier this month, has failed to pacify parts of Baghdad and its surrounding “belts.” Gen. David Petraeus urges more time for the strategy, possibly until next spring (CSMonitor). He has a date with Congress in September to present a progress report.

- rest at www.cfr.org/publication/13670/

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

And yet it is working with astounding accomplishment in other areas. This report is lacking Nonpartisanship and is incomplete and misleading. But it feeds the libs need for failure. Since that is their politcial stategy to win the whitehouse.


http://www.nypost.com/seven/0320200..._____opedcolumnists_gordon_cucullu.htm?page=0

 

[KenH]

The article, when read as a whole, is not misleading. It is brutally honest. I know that doesn't set well with the disciples of George W. Bush but they are not entitled to their own facts.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Since it failed to give any time to the may areas where the surge has made a dramatic difference the report is one sided therfore it lacks credibility. But libs need it to fail to further their agenda. That includes DOR's

 

[KenH]

Regardless of how disciples of George W. Bush attempt to spin it, a surge that is only 50% effective(if that) is a failure. If the very capital of the country cannot be made safe, then the surge is a failure.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Regardless of how disciples of George W. Bush attempt to spin it, a surge that is only 50% effective(if that) is a failure. If the very capital of the country cannot be made safe, then the surge is a failure.

Really!

What is the allowable time frame that would determine success or failure?

How much of the country should be become a success in what time frame for it to be a success?

And just where can this standard be found?

I doubt as a DOR that you can answer these questions. But see crying failure is easy and cheap. And DOR's look for the easy and cheap way to furhter their agenda.

 

[KenH]

Since concerning the Iraq conflict, Timmy, you are a disciple of George W. Bush, what is your standard for claiming that the surge is a success?

My standard is 90%(that was an A in the grading system used when I was in school in the 1960s and 1970s).

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Since concerning the Iraq conflict, Timmy, you are a disciple of George W. Bush, what is your standard for claiming that the surge is a success?

My standard is 90%(that was an A in the grading system used when I was in school in the 1960s and 1970s).

Are you going to answer my questions?

 

[KenH]

Okay.

90% of the country by September 30, 2007 - just over four years and six months after the invasion of Iraq began.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Okay.

90% of the country by September 30, 2007 - just over four years and six months after the invasion of Iraq began.

all of them.

 

[KenH]

What did I miss answering?

I also should add that the 90% must include at least 90% of Baghdad.

 

[KenH]

Here, Timmy, let me help you out by summarizing this for you:


What is the allowable time frame that would determine success or failure?

September 30, 2007 - just over four years and six months after the invasion of Iraq began.

How much of the country should be become a success in what time frame for it to be a success?

90% of the country including 90% of Baghdad by September 30, 2007 - just over four years and six months after the invasion of Iraq began.

And just where can this standard be found?

My standard is 90%. Source: That was an A in the grading system used when I was in school in the 1960s and 1970s.

 

[carpro]

There are differences of opinion although the predetermined opinion that the surge would fail is all we hear about.


"Frederick Kagan, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute whose report "Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq" served as the basis of the new counterinsurgency strategy, gave a cautiously positive evaluation of the surge in his testimony before Lantos' committee.

"It is now beyond question that the Bush administration pursued a flawed approach to the war in Iraq from 2003 to 2007," Kagan said. But "to say that the current plan has failed is simply incorrect....Indications on the military side strongly suggest that success -- in the form of dramatically reduced violence by the end of this year -- is quite likely."

Kagan said it would be a "very grave error indeed to rush now to abandon the first strategy that offers some real prospect for success."

Kagan added that though President Bush announced his new strategy in January of this year, and reinforcement brigades began arriving in Iraq over the winter and spring, the operations that are designed to clear out insurgent activity in Baghdad have not yet begun in earnest.

Kagan testified that "a successful clear-and-hold operation...will probably begin in late July or early August within Baghdad itself." He said that operation will be the one to bring lasting security to Iraq's capital -- creating "the space for political progress that we all desire."

 

[KenH]

Fred Kagan is a neocon and AEI is the leading neocon think tank.

Then again, it was the neocons who agitated to get Bush's Folly in Iraq started in the first place so maybe they ought to be the ones to have to try to figure out how to get these United States out of the mess they created. But since they bungled the operation from the get go there is no reason to expect that they have any idea how to get out of Bush's Folly in Iraq.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Here, Timmy, let me help you out by summarizing this for you:


What is the allowable time frame that would determine success or failure?

September 30, 2007 - just over four years and six months after the invasion of Iraq began.

How much of the country should be become a success in what time frame for it to be a success?

90% of the country including 90% of Baghdad by September 30, 2007 - just over four years and six months after the invasion of Iraq began.

And just where can this standard be found?

My standard is 90%. Source: That was an A in the grading system used when I was in school in the 1960s and 1970s.

The grading system for school is a poor comparison and has no relevence in war. And you did not give a standard or authority for you time frame.

 

[KenH]

1) The grading system for school is a poor comparison and has no relevence in war.

2) And you did not give a standard or authority for you time frame.

1) You may not approve of it but I gave you an answer.

2) The standard is that I think that 4.5 years is long enough to show results. The authority is me.


Now you answer these questions: By what date does the surge have to show results for you to call it a success? How successful must it be for you to call it a sucess? What is your standard/authority for answerig the first two questions?

 

[carpro]

Fred Kagan is a neocon and AEI is the leading neocon think tank.

So what?

Can you refute his points?

 

[KenH]

Carpro, rather than the two of posting the same posts on two separate threads, I will refer the readers to the other thread entitled "Surging Toward Disaster in Iraq".

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

1) You may not approve of it but I gave you an answer.

2) The standard is that I think that 4.5 years is long enough to show results. The authority is me.


Now you answer these questions: By what date does the surge have to show results for you to call it a success? How successful must it be for you to call it a sucess? What is your standard/authority for answerig the first two questions?

Ah! And you expertise in war comes from where?

 

[KenH]

Are you afraid to answer my questions? Are do you only ask questions?