Are Democrats Ignoring the Surge ?

[spiderman]

Watching FOX News Sunday, and wanted to share this exchange between Chris Wallace of FOX and Democratic Presidential Candidate Bill Richardson, who believes all troops should be pulled out of Iraq within a year.

 

Richardson keeps referring to General Sanchez as a commander in Iraq when in fact he hasn't been the commander in 2 or 3 years, and he is completely ignoring any progress of the surge.

 

 

 

**

 

WALLACE: Aren't you, at this point, about to pull the troops out at exactly the moment when the troop surge shows signs of working?

I'd like you to take a look at these numbers, sir. Thirty-nine U.S. soldiers died in October. That's the lowest monthly number since sectarian violence spiked in March of 2006. According to the U.S. military, Iraqi civilian deaths fell from 2,800 in Ja nuary to 800 last month.

And, Governor, look at these numbers from Baghdad — murders down 80 percent from the peak. Attacks using roadside bombs down 70 percent. Governor, aren't you giving up — aren't you going to turn back hard-won territory to our enemies just at the moment when the surge is beginning to work and violence is decreasing in Iraq?

 

RICHARDSON: First of all, I don't believe the surge is working. You don't mention progress...

 

WALLACE: Sir, how do you explain those numbers? I mean, October was 39...

 

RICHARDSON: You don't measure progress by body counts. Here's how I would measure progress. Number one, there is no progress in political compromise. The Maliki government has failed to make that happen in dividing up all revenues. Three out of 18 benchmarks by the General Accounting Office have shown that it is a failure — three out of the — benchmarks, especially the ones that matter, like are we training Iraqi forces at a successful rate.

Is there movement toward a political compromise where the three groups get together? General Sanchez, our Iraqi commander, comes out and says basically the

surge is a disaster...

 

WALLACE: ... I mean, you've mentioned Sanchez twice. He was our Iraqi commander a good long time ago, and he was let go as part of the Abu Ghraib scandal. So I mean, he's not on top of the situation right now either. I mean, you're ignoring...

 

RICHARDSON: No, but, Chris, he's a military leader.

 

WALLACE: Some years ago he was on the ground. It seems to me yo u're...

ignoring the fact, Governor, that in Anbar province, the Sunnis have turned away from Al Qaeda and now favor us. Places like Ramadi and Fallujah — people can walk down the street. There are neighborhoods in Baghdad that used to be death zones that are now safe for people to walk. And aren't you ignoring just the facts on the ground in Iraq?

 

RICHARDSON: No, this is a quagmire. There is no military solution. There's only a political solution. And that window, in my judgment, is vanishing. When 3,800 American troops are dead, 60,000 American troops are wounded — mental health — 100,000 Iraqis have perished, you can't say that this successfully has been a military operation.There is a political solution, and I believe that solution can happen if we use the leverage of our withdrawal responsibly over a 12- month period, but push the United States diplomacy, leadership, a Dayton-type agre ement in which the three groups in Iraq potentially have some kind of a political compromise where they share power, an all-Muslim peacekeeping force with European forces, too, headed by the United Nations to patrol that potential agreement.

And then thirdly, other countries, Chris, like donor countries in Europe and Japan, to pay for a war that has cost the American people $750 billion. We need to shift our forces. I would keep some in Kuwait. I would refurbish our presence in Afghanistan. We need two more divisions in the Army. We need one division in the Marines. Our military has been bled dry by this war. It is time to shift.

 

[spiderman]

USAToday:

 

Roadside bombs in Iraq fall sharply

The number of roadside bombs found in Iraq declined dramatically in August and September from earlier this year, and U.S. officials say the discoveries of thousands of ammunition caches might explain the drop.

Improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, are responsible for at least 60% of U.S. casualties in Iraq. The Pentagon has repeatedly refused to release figures on the number of IED attacks in Iraq or the number of casualties that have resulted.

USA TODAY obtained the month-by-month tally, which represents the total numbers of IEDs — exploded or unexploded — found in Iraq, including those targeting U.S. and coalition troops, Iraqi security forces and civilians.

Since the start of the year through September, coalition forces found 25,208 IEDs, according to the figures, which were confirmed by the Pentagon. In those nine months, IEDs killed 510 coalition troops.

The numbers of IEDs found and the deaths they caused have declined steadily since June. In September, coalition forces found 2,022 IEDs. That's down 38% from March, this year's peak.

On Monday, the U.S. command in Baghdad also said rocket and mortar attacks have dropped to their lowest levels in 21 months. The tallies were issued a day after Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said suicide attacks and other bombings in Baghdad also declined.

U.S. officials say the figures show that efforts to crack the Iraqi insurgency are succeeding. The decline in IEDs is due to "a combination of the right technology and equipment, world-class training, and successfully attacking the networks that build and employ the IEDs," says retired Army general Montgomery Meigs, director of the military's Joint IED Defeat Organization.

In Iraq last week, U.S. commanders cited a spike in the number of ammunition caches that U.S. and coalition forces have found. "The clearing of these caches has helped contribute to the downward trends we are seeing in IED explosions and indirect fire," Rear Adm. Gregory Smith said.

In the first 10 months of 2007, coalition and Iraqi forces have found 5,364 caches of explosives and ammunition — twice the volume found in all of 2006. "These caches consist of a range of munitions, homemade explosives and other items necessary to build improvised explosive devices," Smith said.

Iraqi security forces found and cleared many of the caches, Smith said. He credited the increasing effectiveness of those forces and the recent surge in U.S. troops as key factors.

"Starting in April, when the majority of the surge forces had arrived in Iraq, the number of caches found spiked considerably. And in the ensuing months, we've seen a steady increase," Smith said.

Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commander of U.S. forces south of the capital, said Sunday he believed the decrease in rocket and mortar attacks would hold because of what he called a "groundswell" of support from regular Iraqis. "If we didn't have so many people coming forward to help, I'd think this is a flash in the pan. But that's just not the case," Lynch said.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

The drop in violence is indicative of a very, very important change in the dynamic, but not for the reasons that are being pedaled by the MSM (many of whom are simply being fed information by the military). If you read just one thing I post on Iraq this year, please read this...

 

I've said for a couple months now... Ignore the talking head types, and read articles written by journalists who are actually over there and talking to the locals. Those articles, in the Trib (you know, that bastion of liberalism), the NYT and both Washington papers (yes, both), have all pointed to the same fact that a lot of people seem to be ignoring - the drop in violence has nothing to do with the surge. Its happening because many of the insurgent groups are electing to sit back for a bit, and try re-entering the political process. They are all saying the same thing.

 

Now, that doesn't make the progress a bad thing - not at all. In fact, I think that's even better than having it be created by a military push. It means there is hope for a politically stable Iraq. A "peace" generated by military might would be short-lived, and the violence would re-surge as soon as troops drew down. So this, to me, is actually even better news than the supposed military surge.

 

But... and this is a huge key... the fortunes of this trend hang by a thin thread. Whatever progress the US and the Iraqi national government have made in opening these doors lately needs to be reinforced and nurtured in a huge way. This should be the priority. If they do that, and if they allow these groups real involvement, then I think things can get a lot better in Iraq and fairly quickly. If on the other hand, our leaders are falling for this military "surge" garbage, and don't work to further involve the regional/tribal leaders... we will be right back to the high violence rates in short order.

 

This is a key point in the Iraq campaign. Don't be deceived into thinking this very significant positive turn is the result of a relatively small military shift. And for the anti-war crowd, don't dismiss the drop in violence as some sort of aberration either. This is real, and it needs to be fostered into something bigger. Its time for the anti-war folks who deny all signs of progress, and the ill-informed followers of a failed administration, to put down their pride and act in the best interests of Iraq, the Middle East and our own country. I hope our leaders can see this too.

 

[southsider2k5]

I like how Richardson said you can't use falling death totals as a measure of progress, but then used death totals to bolster his arguement from the downside. That's the kind of doubletalk that I thought we weren't going to get with this guy...

[NorthSideSox72]

I like how Richardson said you can't use falling death totals as a measure of progress, but then used death totals to bolster his arguement from the downside. That's the kind of doubletalk that I thought we weren't going to get with this guy...

His use of the numbers is bad. But he is pretty much dead on about a political solution being needed. I don't agree with the type of solution he is stating exactly, though.

 

[ChiSox_Sonix]

This really is not a Democrat v.s Republican thing...it's really more of a Bill Richardson v.s not being an idiot thing

[spiderman]

This really is not a Democrat v.s Republican thing...it's really more of a Bill Richardson v.s not being an idiot thing

 

I think it's clearly a Democratic stance that Richardson seems to be the most definite about. All of the leading Democrats are talking of withdraw, though not as immediate as Richardson, but not far behind - leaving limited number of troops behind for special missions.

[spiderman]

His use of the numbers is bad. But he is pretty much dead on about a political solution being needed. I don't agree with the type of solution he is stating exactly, though.

 

No doubt a political solution is needed, but can one exist with such a high level of violence ? That's why the recent progress is good news. If it lasts, it allows for a chance at a political solution being worked out.

[NorthSideSox72]

No doubt a political solution is needed, but can one exist with such a high level of violence ? That's why the recent progress is good news. If it lasts, it allows for a chance at a political solution being worked out.

Did you even read my first post in this thread? The recent progress IS political, and not military.

 

[southsider2k5]

Did you even read my first post in this thread? The recent progress IS political, and not military.

 

Even if you want to say the progress has come because of political manuevering, I believe it was made possible by the military getting control and forcing people's hands.

[NorthSideSox72]

Even if you want to say the progress has come because of political manuevering, I believe it was made possible by the military getting control and forcing people's hands.

The military doesn't control anything now more than they did. Heck, even these articles that think its about the surge... have you seen any that made any sort of point as to anything the military has done to "take more control"? They haven't. Heck, when the surge started, that wasn't even a goal - the goals were about more penetration, saturation of chosen areas, etc.

 

Deaths are down because the bringers of that death are on voluntary hiatus. I sincerely hope that hiatus can become something more.

 

[EvilMonkey]

And they 'voluntarily' went on hiatus because............. maybe tired of getting shot at?

[kapkomet]

The military doesn't control anything now more than they did. Heck, even these articles that think its about the surge... have you seen any that made any sort of point as to anything the military has done to "take more control"? They haven't. Heck, when the surge started, that wasn't even a goal - the goals were about more penetration, saturation of chosen areas, etc.

 

Deaths are down because the bringers of that death are on voluntary hiatus. I sincerely hope that hiatus can become something more.

oh, no NSS, the military shouldn't get ANY credit. Come on. You're better then that. I know, I'm parsing words, but the root of your post is just not true. I think they go hand in hand. Read Nuke's posts, and I've read some others that are very similiar, and I don't think it's propaganda bull s***, either. These people have the proverbial foot upside their head and are now being asked to be a part of the process. It doesn't happen unless the military changed tactics - which they did.

[NorthSideSox72]

oh, no NSS, the military shouldn't get ANY credit. Come on. You're better then that. I know, I'm parsing words, but the root of your post is just not true. I think they go hand in hand. Read Nuke's posts, and I've read some others that are very similiar, and I don't think it's propaganda bull s***, either. These people have the proverbial foot upside their head and are now being asked to be a part of the process. It doesn't happen unless the military changed tactics - which they did.

I am sure it came off as such, but I am not saying the military doesn't deserve some credit for it. The pressure I am sure helped a lot. But the situation itself, the turn of events if you will, was prompted outside of what anyone expected, myself included. I don't think anyone here predicted or anticipated that these chieftains or whatever you want to call them would suddenly, somewhat en masse, decide to step back, and reach out to the Iraqi government. That was not a militarily driven event.

 

And just to be clear on this too... I am not saying these things because I think the military is incapable. I think they are very capable at the things they are meant to do. But they are stretched way too thin, even with the surge. And they are, still, the military - they don't reach out to political leaders to make compromises or increase involvement (usually). So the fact that this isn't a militarily driven shift is in no way a reflection of military failure - its a reflection of a change in the non-military situation, which resulted in some military-related consequences. Is that more clear?

 

[southsider2k5]

The military doesn't control anything now more than they did. Heck, even these articles that think its about the surge... have you seen any that made any sort of point as to anything the military has done to "take more control"? They haven't. Heck, when the surge started, that wasn't even a goal - the goals were about more penetration, saturation of chosen areas, etc.

 

Deaths are down because the bringers of that death are on voluntary hiatus. I sincerely hope that hiatus can become something more.

 

You don't get anywhere politically until there is a law and order in a country. That isn't just Iraq, that's anywhere. The surge put a cramp into plans of the organizations who were terrorizing Iraq to the point where a political solution started to sound much more attractive then when they had free reign in large swaths of the country. But the other side of the coin is that there isn't a lasting peace until there is a political solution. You might be able to take control of a sitution short-term, which is what I believe happened, but then you need the people to work it out from there, which seems to be happening as we speak. Will it last, who knows? But I do believe its not a one sided thing, (military or political)as much as each side would have you believe. These are mutually dependant.

[NorthSideSox72]

You don't get anywhere politically until there is a law and order in a country. That isn't just Iraq, that's anywhere. The surge put a cramp into plans of the organizations who were terrorizing Iraq to the point where a political solution started to sound much more attractive then when they had free reign in large swaths of the country. But the other side of the coin is that there isn't a lasting peace until there is a political solution. You might be able to take control of a sitution short-term, which is what I believe happened, but then you need the people to work it out from there, which seems to be happening as we speak. Will it last, who knows? But I do believe its not a one sided thing, (military or political)as much as each side would have you believe. These are mutually dependant.

That mutually dependent thing is important, and the fact that it isn't one side or the other is what I was getting at. But I think it was more like neither, than both - if that makes sense. The idea of them stepping back is indeed prompted by, among a number of things, military pressure - but is that the surge, or the fact that they've been chased around for 4 or 5 years now? There is also an apparent groundswell of public support in Iraq for peace as well, and that also plays a part.

 

Point is this - I've seen definitive connections made for certain causes to this shift. The chieftains or whatever and their actions are one. The public support for the political process is another. In both cases, you see action and consequence, but you also see causality. For the surge, I see no causality. The surge happened, increasing troop levels by like 10%, and changing tactics. Did that cause anything specific? Is something more under control?

 

This is similar to the global warming debate. If I simply point to a graph and say "look, temperatures are up this decade/century", and assume its global warming, you should rightly laugh me out of the room. I have action (pollution) and result (warming), but fail to make a connection between the two. Now, if I then show you that CO levels are well above those at any time in hundreds of millenia, that glaciers that have stood for millenia are melting, and that the ice caps are receding to less than they've ever been... I can at least make an argument of connection there (even if its still arguable). What is the connection in the case of the surge? What did the surge DO, other than put more boots on the ground, that made the locals change their minds?

 

Also, the drop being so precipitous, to me, makes it pretty clear this isn't the surge causing subjigation of the enemy. If it was, the drop would be gradual. Not a sudden fall after a few years of consistent rise. Something dramatic has changed.

 

[Texsox]

Here is one crazy little circle we have going, and why this is going to be ugly for a long time.

 

We're losing this war, let's get the hell out and let the chips fall where they may.

We're winning this war, hurray let's get out. Mission Accomplished.

We're losing this war, we need to stay the course and get the job done.

We're winning this war with the surge, we need to stay the course and get the job done.

 

If someone is of the opinion we should leave, it doesn't matter if we are winning or lose, and same for staying.

 

Plus, we have no way to knowing what an acceptable level of violence is for Iraq. It's like we're starting with the street crime in Washington D.C. and trying to turn it into Andy Griffin's Mayberry. It ain't going to happen. That is an impossible reduction of violence. If we reported gang crime in NY, LA, Houston, or Chicago like the Iraq War, many days it will look pretty similar.

[NorthSideSox72]

Here is one crazy little circle we have going, and why this is going to be ugly for a long time.

 

We're losing this war, let's get the hell out and let the chips fall where they may.

We're winning this war, hurray let's get out. Mission Accomplished.

We're losing this war, we need to stay the course and get the job done.

We're winning this war with the surge, we need to stay the course and get the job done.

 

If someone is of the opinion we should leave, it doesn't matter if we are winning or lose, and same for staying.

 

Plus, we have no way to knowing what an acceptable level of violence is for Iraq. It's like we're starting with the street crime in Washington D.C. and trying to turn it into Andy Griffin's Mayberry. It ain't going to happen. That is an impossible reduction of violence. If we reported gang crime in NY, LA, Houston, or Chicago like the Iraq War, many days it will look pretty similar.

You were fine until that last sentence. Not even close. You can combine the deaths and assaults from gang violence in those cities together and they'd still be a small fraction of what happens daily in Baghdad alone, even with the drop in violence there.

 

[Texsox]

You are correct, I was being too optimistic. I think the delta between the worst days in a major US city, and the best days in many Iraq cities, are pretty close. But averaging over a week or month and I am wrong.

[YASNY]

The idea of them stepping back is indeed prompted by, among a number of things, military pressure - but is that the surge, or the fact that they've been chased around for 4 or 5 years now? There is also an apparent groundswell of public support in Iraq for peace as well, and that also plays a part.

 

Perhaps it is the surge AND the fact they've been chased around for 4 or 5 years. And yes, I'm sure the goundswell for peace has helped too, as the Iraqi people are finally stepping and pointing fingers. This is what was said on numerous occasions would have to happen and what TPTB have been hoping for.

[kapkomet]

I am sure it came off as such, but I am not saying the military doesn't deserve some credit for it. The pressure I am sure helped a lot. But the situation itself, the turn of events if you will, was prompted outside of what anyone expected, myself included. I don't think anyone here predicted or anticipated that these chieftains or whatever you want to call them would suddenly, somewhat en masse, decide to step back, and reach out to the Iraqi government. That was not a militarily driven event.

 

And just to be clear on this too... I am not saying these things because I think the military is incapable. I think they are very capable at the things they are meant to do. But they are stretched way too thin, even with the surge. And they are, still, the military - they don't reach out to political leaders to make compromises or increase involvement (usually). So the fact that this isn't a militarily driven shift is in no way a reflection of military failure - its a reflection of a change in the non-military situation, which resulted in some military-related consequences. Is that more clear?

Yessir.

 

As some other posts have alluded to, I think there had to be both components happening to allow for a political outreach. It seems like that is happening, and let's hope that it goes further then the "scratch the surface" junk that we're just now seeing.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Didn't the military sieze like 20k tons of weapons and ammo just in the last month or so? Aren't they more effective in their pursuit of the cells of insurgents that are still terrorizing parts of the country? My thinking is that the leaders of the insurgency are finally at a point where they understand that if they continue as they were they'd be finished in the short-term. However if they scale back and regroup they'll be more effective in the long term. This means not only entering the political arena, but also restrategizing their hope to take over the country.

 

I was a pro-war guy in the beginning who has watched this admnistration continually f*ck up to the point it's almost laughable how they handled this war. But I'm also convinced that by leaving now we'd lose any long-term benefit of going there in the first place. That being said, I think this reduction in attacks is only temporary. I really see it as the insurgent leadership getting smart and realizing they can do more harm later if the relax their efforts a bit.

[YASNY]

Didn't the military sieze like 20k tons of weapons and ammo just in the last month or so? Aren't they more effective in their pursuit of the cells of insurgents that are still terrorizing parts of the country? My thinking is that the leaders of the insurgency are finally at a point where they understand that if they continue as they were they'd be finished in the short-term. However if they scale back and regroup they'll be more effective in the long term. This means not only entering the political arena, but also restrategizing their hope to take over the country.

 

I was a pro-war guy in the beginning who has watched this admnistration continually f*ck up to the point it's almost laughable how they handled this war. But I'm also convinced that by leaving now we'd lose any long-term benefit of going there in the first place. That being said, I think this reduction in attacks is only temporary. I really see it as the insurgent leadership getting smart and realizing they can do more harm later if the relax their efforts a bit.

 

You are correct. The terrorists have changed their tactics many times, then we'd change ours, which would cause them to change again.

[NorthSideSox72]

Didn't the military sieze like 20k tons of weapons and ammo just in the last month or so? Aren't they more effective in their pursuit of the cells of insurgents that are still terrorizing parts of the country? My thinking is that the leaders of the insurgency are finally at a point where they understand that if they continue as they were they'd be finished in the short-term. However if they scale back and regroup they'll be more effective in the long term. This means not only entering the political arena, but also restrategizing their hope to take over the country.

 

I was a pro-war guy in the beginning who has watched this admnistration continually f*ck up to the point it's almost laughable how they handled this war. But I'm also convinced that by leaving now we'd lose any long-term benefit of going there in the first place. That being said, I think this reduction in attacks is only temporary. I really see it as the insurgent leadership getting smart and realizing they can do more harm later if the relax their efforts a bit.

That is my fear - and why I am hoping that political leaders, both Iraqi and American, seize this opportunity and try to build on it. If they don't, I think we'll see exactly what you are talking about.

 

[mr_genius]

The drop in violence is indicative of a very, very important change in the dynamic, but not for the reasons that are being pedaled by the MSM

 

 

they are barely covering any good news in Iraq. Something bad happens, yea, big news. Any news good for Dems = big news. News bad for Dems = ignored our barely mentioned.