An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
The Surge Worked; “We” Won the War
“We” is the United States. We won the war. The surge worked. The naysayers were all wrong; thanks to U.S. military might, Iraqis (see them? Shiny, happy Iraqis!) have been liberated from death, destruction, grief, and sorrow.
Well. At least, that’s what it looks like from 10,000 miles away. Close up, it looks a bit different.
But, by gum, we won, and Iraqis are free. Because we said we did, and because we say they are.
86 Responses to “The Surge Worked; “We” Won the War”
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Hans Spee, TMV. TMV said: The Surge Worked; “We” Won the War: “We” is the United States. We won the war. The surge worked. The naysaye… http://bit.ly/32rCzn [...]
kathy – still hating all and everything America, huh?
Kathy would it make any difference that the death rate is lower than before the war? Even with the bombings? That energy and water production levels are tremendously higher? That millions of people have cellphones and internet where none did before? Is there any standard that a country in the middle east could meet that would make you satisfied? I thought naught.
If only it were.
I don't know about before the war (although it would be interesting to see the numbers if you have them, EEllis), but the numbers I've seen clearly show a marked decrease in both civilian and military deaths over the past few years. I wouldn't say we “Won”, but it is pretty clear that the surge (consisting of both the increase of troops and change in strategy) worked.
This tragic event doesn't disprove that. No one argued that there would not be any violence in 2009 after the surge. There is still violence, sometimes even mass violence, in our own country, and most would consider this a relatively safe and free nation.
So how many car bombs went of in the US during the last six months? Killing how many people?
If we want to know how the war is going, why don't we ask Iraqis: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/13_0…
65% say their life is going good [sic] or very good, compared to 39% in 2007.
58% say the country is doing good or very good, compared to 22% is 2007.
50% say the security situation in their community has improved in the last 6 months, compared to 3% that say it became worse.
I wonder how Americans would respond to those same questions (about America, that is)?
“So how many car bombs went of in the US during the last six months? Killing how many people?”
My point is that the expectation of 0 violent deaths is unrealistic, as evidenced by the fact that it is not 0 in US. I was not trying to imply that the security situation in Iraq is the same as in the US, but that was never the measuring stick for the success of the surge.
Pointing out that GW Bush's little adventure in Iraq has killed more people than Saddam Hussein did is not hating America, It's just a fact.
A) There was a measuring stick?
B) What was it?
Did that include the I.5 million refugees living in Jordan, Syria and other neighboring countries?
BTW, why don't we ask them if their life is better than it was in 2001 prior to GW Bush's great Iraqi adventure?
Now now, to be fair, it was a joint effort between Bush, Cheney and a dozen or so oil magnates..lol..
**
“kathy – still hating all and everything America, huh?”~Austin
******
If you dare to define “America” as your sweet little gang of thugs and their brand of religious thuggery, then you sir are a traitor to the definition.
Megadittos Sil. God forbid this plunging of standards should be questioned! Why, it's un American!
DQ -
Ignoring all the true and actual progress that HAS occurred there since we got rid of Saddam whenever something bad happens is. It is looking for every opportunity to denigrate the US, which is what Kathy seems to do, full time. Please develop a list of the posts by her talking about anything good about America, domestic or foreign. Maybe you can find a few, but she runs 20 -1 negative on ALL things about America, easily.
Please show where you found these stats(page) in the study. I did a couple of pdf searches and didn't find these results.
It is not denigrating America to protest and decry the military adventurism we are now saddled with, courtesy the previous administration.
In fact, I would venture to say that those of us who vehemently protested the invasion of Iraq and to a lesser extent, Afghanistan, love this country so much that we despair what the last administration did to it. We despair the loss of American, Iragi and Afghani lives, the loss of America's stature on the international stage and the depleting of the national treasury.
It was not then, nor is it now, unpatriotic to respectfully dissent. And to suggest otherwise is disingenuous, intellectually lazy and, dare I say it, unpatriotic.
AR
“Maybe you can find a few, but she runs 20 -1 negative on ALL things about America, easily.”
Perhaps her choice of subjects are based upon the fact that much has been done in the name of the US that is directly counter to our country's ideals. She's reported on torture, illegal surveillance by the CIA, and the highly cost effective private health care industry lobbying. Where's the un-American slant in this?
AR – could it be you have a predefined assumption about K's writing? Is her bias worse than jazz or any other contributor? I think not.
Again, it is to tie every negative action as 'America's fault'. As others have pointed out, the majority of Iraqi's think things are better, and the statistics support that contention. But that doesn't matter to those who only want to denigrate America whenever they can.
Is her bias worse than jazz or any other contributor? I think not.
I disagree. I think she is about as extreme as is there is here at TMV. I think she is to the left of Michael Stickings. Well, almost. That is a toss-up.
I truly and honestly believe she is an anti-American who is at the least a Socialist and most likely a Communist in her political beliefs, particularly in her economic beliefs.
I think Jazz, who is definitely to the Right, is much, much more middle-of-the-road than Kathy. There are many of the more Left-leaning posters here, most in fact, that are much more middle-of-the-road than Kathy as well.
We won the war in 2003, we cant win against an insurgency in a nation that is not ours because historically the only way to do so is genocide. Eventually we will leave Iraq and the Iraqi's will deal with the insurgency and finally put it to bed but not until they partner up with Iran who will end up being the only winner in the entire debacle. Not because America is bad but because this is the reality that was already understood by most of the world media prior to our invasion and the passing years have only made it become more undeniable. Our media of course disagreed and oddly so did the pentagon but I am sure no connection exists between our media myopia and a pentagon that had an agenda.
From 10,000 miles away the Stimulas might even look good.
“If only it were.”
Ask a Kurd. I'm sure he or she would be glad to give you a few figures to ponder. Ask a resident of Basra the same question.
To try to get past the inevitable sniping that occurs when an event is framed in such a myopic and politically polarizing manner as Kathy has done here….
What does an isolated terrorist attack have to do with the question of whether or not Iraqis are currently 'free'? I don't think anyone would have questioned that the US remained a free nation after the 9/11 attacks, or (even to choose an example where an attack was clearly an attempt to manipulate an upcoming election) whether Spain remained a free nation after the Madrid bombings of 2004.
So surely there is more to the question of whether Iraq is now free and better off than under Saddam than looking at this incident, no matter how horrific and unsettling the incident is.
And that is why the post is not only partisan hyperbole, but also illogical.
Vera,
I don't think (I hope) they meant that it was unpatriotic to protest any war. The question of patriotism may come into play when people claim defeat (for political agenda purposes) even if we succeeded in Iraq.
My definition of success from my military experience (22 years) is when a strategy is well defined, the proper tools are given to approach it, and the goal is achieved. We have, indeed, done that in Iraq.
I've been there several times and can tell you that most of the country (not all, of course) is better off than they were under Saddam. They need their oil field profits released by the UN before they can benefit from production, as the same sanctions that were under Saddam are still in place. That would help Iraqis immensely. Their infrastructure and economic structure is in place, all they need is the catalyst (oil).
By the way. If you are a betting person. Buy up some Iraqi Dinar. It's gonna skyrocket very soon. China has made an offer to develop Iraq's oil fields. Once that happens, the Dinar will increase in value ten-fold.
MSF,
That may be a self-fulfilling prophesy. I believe that, if we leave, the majority of the insurgency will leave as well. They weren't there prior to 2003. Most will go to Afghanistan to make a stand against us – or they'll regroup and plan something big. They've given up on Iraq. Their only hope is Afghanistan. Iran is a player, but they do not want to invade Iraq again. Their populace would revolt.
I think it is even worse than that. Half of it would disappear in a puff of smoke as they headed home to Iran or their funding dried up and the other half would go to Afghanistan. The reason Iraq is the focal point is because Iran wants a christmas present in the guise of a friendly Iraq as opposed to the one they faced with Saddam. With this invasion we reversed all of the damage we did to the Iranian regime in the 80's by funding Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war. We are handing them what they could not win on the battlefield whether we leave today or in 30 years matters little, this is the reality of the situation. Iran does not care about Afgh. only Pakistan does which is why only half of the insurgency will shift, the part funded and schooled by Saudi Arabia and trained and commanded from Pakistan. Luckily Iran has no desire to take on Pakistan since no one wants to govern Pakistan they all just want to control it, unfortunately no one can control Pakistan, not its leaders not the militants not the Taliban not Al Qaeda not Saudi Arabia/the US/the UN or any other power in the world. Pakistan changes policy with the way the wind blows because if they do not they will be overthrown and no one has any clue who will win but we all have our fears that the entire world would lose. The only real way to fix Afgh. is to invade Pakistan and Saudi Arabia(where the militants and funding comes from) which I think we will continue to ignore since it is in our oil interests to do so. Of course if we invaded Saudi Arabia and overthrew the monarchy and allowed elections Osama Bin Laden wins since our support of that regime is reason #1 he gives for his hatred of the US.
Whaddya know, a post I can agree with completely, JD. We can hope that the insurgency will leave/die off after we're gone. But one could redevelop if the current government continues its current ineptitude and corruption.
America, the greatest war criminal machine of all time, with bigotry and jingoism and neo-colonialist capitalism-imperialism and hierarchy-patrichy over all.
Is that better, Chomsk–excuse me, Kathy?
Calling other people communists and socialists, only makes you look ridiculous and provincial.
Besides, our democracy is big enough to accommodate the occasional communist or socialist. WE as a nation are mature enough to tolerate diversity of thought. Indeed, it is the very source of our strength!
If you want to talk about how the military adventurism of the last eight years (and there is plenty of blame to go around) destabilized the Middle East and is bankrupting us, that's a fair discussion. To question someone's good faith, the very REASON why someone posts so passionately here on this forum, is another matter.
Throwing around labels, questioning another's patriotism or devotion to this country, is despicable and should not be tolerated.
“I think she is to the left of Michael Stickings.”
She is more sane and less hateful than Mikey often is (he follows the rabidly-radical extremist US blueprint safely removed from the fray, in Ontario). In Mikey's defense, he is probably doing what's commonly done on a debate site, choose to be deliberately provocative at times; he was firmly in the morality-and-sanity side on the Polanski issue, don't forget.
Kathy, we're still waiting to see you with that autographed Che'-vette beret.
“I think she is to the left of Michael Stickings.”
She is more sane and less hateful than Mikey often is (he follows the rabidly-radical extremist US blueprint safely removed from the fray, in Ontario). In Mikey's defense, he is probably doing what's commonly done on a debate site, choose to be deliberately provocative at times; he was firmly in the morality-and-sanity side on the Polanski issue, don't forget.
Kathy, we're still waiting to see you with that autographed Che'-vette beret.
“I wonder how Americans would respond to those same questions (about America, that is)?”
Iraq has as good a chance for future success as can be had, if they'll choose that direction. As Jefferson Davis has noticed, a booster (which many of us here knew about before the war started there, in Iraq) is the oil wealth just waiting to be used to advance that country. Had the Kurds been running the entire country, I suspect it already would have been vaulted into rapid development, everywhere there. (This is not just a problem with terrorists and a meddling Iran threatening to retard development, but other cultural issues as well, history of past authoritarianism, and so on.)
Can you imagine how much worse shape Iraq would be in, if there had been waste and misspending as with our current “stimulus” and other measures, or deliberately crafted anti-development energy- and related, environmentalist-politics-based policy decisions there?
“I wonder how Americans would respond to those same questions (about America, that is)?”
Iraq has as good a chance for future success as can be had, if they'll choose that direction. As Jefferson Davis has noticed, a booster (which many of us here knew about before the war started there, in Iraq) is the oil wealth just waiting to be used to advance that country. Had the Kurds been running the entire country, I suspect it already would have been vaulted into rapid development, everywhere there. (This is not just a problem with terrorists and a meddling Iran threatening to retard development, but other cultural issues as well, history of past authoritarianism, and so on.)
Can you imagine how much worse shape Iraq would be in, if there had been waste and misspending as with our current “stimulus” and other measures, or deliberately crafted anti-development energy- and related, environmentalist-politics-based policy decisions there?
Funny how some folks act as though it's “extreme” to be aiming for higher standards. Advocating for a lower bar is more patriotic?
I give you American exceptionalisim!
Calling other people communists and socialists, only makes you look ridiculous and provincial.
Why? I simply expressed what I think her politics are.
Unless there is no one who thinks they are indeed valid social/economic systems. But both are taught in our colleges, both have large memberships both in and out of the US, both are used as the basis of government many countries.
I simply expressed my opinion of her politics. She herself in the past has admitted that her politics lean towards socialism.
JD, I hope you're right. I really do.
Okay, then Austin Roth.
I happen to think you're a Fascist. I'm *just* expressing my opinion about what I think your politics are (not that I know a darn thing about you other than what you choose to post here).
Unless there is no one who thinks Fascism isn't a valid social/economic system. Why, it's taught in our colleges, has a large membership both in and out of the US, and is used as the basis of government in many countries (I know that becasue Rush tells me so).
I am simply expressing my opinion of your politics. You have in the past have displayed positions that lean toward asshattery, after all.
That the so-called antiwar editors and posters bend over backwards to discredit any Bush administration policies on Iraq and Afghanistan is a yawn.
The more revealing of the flaws in the character of the left is that they also bend over backwards to avoid ever acknowledging the Obama administration continues the same ones they decry.
Which adminstration is more salient to discuss? Apparently, the one that is long over.
Again, I have never said I had fascist tendencies; Kathy has admitted being socialist, and has made numerous posts expressing that. As my posts tend towards Libertarianism and Conservatism, call me that 'bad' name. I bet both are swear words to you.
Because being a socialist isn't allowed in America? In fact, it is. It *is* allowed, just as being a libertarian, communist, conservative or asshat is.
Here's the reality: the deciders aren't “conservatives” any more. That political philosophy came up short, in the eyes of the American people. Other people are in charge now, because of the failures of the previous administration.
Throwing around political labels will do nothing for your cause. Proposing real alternatives, with real solutions to the problems of the day, will get people interested in what you espouse. If you think that somehow, the American people are really missing McCarthyism, keep on doing what you're doing.
I can guarantee you that its a losing proposition.
McCarthyism????
HA HA HA HA
Talk about hypocritical name-calling.
Yes. Because we ignored (basically) Afghanistan and placed more emphasis in and resources into Iraq, the government of Iraq looks like utopia in comparison to Karzai's government. But if Iraq had the opium crop that Afghanistan clings to, it would be much the same. I'm convinced that the only way to succeed in Afghanistan is to “embrace” the opium economy there, instead of telling the warlords they “can't grow that stuff anymore”. It's part of their culture. That's part of the key.
“facist” to Ausin Roth.
Fascism is the government takeover of business and social culture with strong authoritarian centralized government control. Mussolini, Hitler, Chavez are/were fascist. That HARDLY applies to AR. People make the mistake of calling conservatives “fascist”. It's a misnomer, much like someone mistakenly calling a liberal a “communist”.
Websters Dictionary Definition:
fas·cism fa-shi-z?m
A political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
“as though it's 'extreme' to be aiming for higher standards”
Lower is “higher” — typical Orwellian re-definition that is unsurprising…
Or is it just a failure to understand correct definitions in the first place?
I thought we went into Iraq to fight the terrorists…. So shouldn't the question be if there are fewer terrorists in Iraq now?
How many car bombings and terrorists attacks occurred Iraq under Saddam? How many terrorists were trained in Iraq while he was in power (including terrorists who were NOT part of hsi regime)?
Where do we stand on both those accounts today?
“I thought we went into Iraq to fight the terrorists”
We officially went into Iraq to remove the Hussein government, which we defined as a threat to its neighbors as well as to its own people, i.e., to US interests in the region.
Why we actually went in there, could be as simple as Dubya's exacting revenge on Hussein for having tried to kill his father after we went to war with Hussein's Iraq several years earlier, following an invasion and takeover of Kuwait, and threat to the Saudi oil fields (not only immediately, but later, if he had been permitted to retain Kuwait). It also could have been as simple as our wanting to demonstrate resolve against terrorists everywhere by showing what we'd do to a more powerful party.
“How many car bombings and terrorists attacks occurred Iraq under Saddam?”
That doesn't mean you're a fan of such people are you? (I don't think you are!)
That we “lost the peace” after we won the (real) war, in fact explains much of 2006's and 2008's US election results.
Just a side note here, for the possible benefit of certain TMV commenters: This country has been a blend of socialism and capitalism for as long as I remember. Neither word is inherently a pejorative, but either can be caricatured. Think context and balance (yes, I know how hard that is
Thank you, DQ. I would add that if being “for” your own country means that you cannot acknowledge that your country's policies have caused unimaginable suffering for another country's people, then that is truly unfortunate, and a terrible shame. I was feeling great anger and pain last night when I wrote that post (it was even more lacerating before I edited it). It struck me as not just unfair, but a massive injustice — an injustice of monstrous proportions — that Americans have the luxury of sitting around making their judgments of certainty that the U.S. succeeded in Iraq, and won, and liberated Iraqis, without ever having to have those judgments tested by daily reality. Iraqis have no such luxury. It's wrong, what we did. It's deeply wrong. We had no right to do it, and we had no need to do it. But for me, at least, when I see those massive government buildings completely gutted by bombs, and when I see a young Iraqi man sobbing in the arms of a loved one, I feel such anguish and such anger that it's hard to keep to myself. If that makes some Americans think that I “hate all and everything American,” then so be it. At least I am not so rigidly nationalistic that I can't feel compassion for someone outside my tribe.