Posts
3482
Joined
8/26/2006
Location
CA
US
Edited Date/Time
1/26/2012 1:11pm
Enough already on that simplistic, idiotic claim of McCain. It's time to retire that or call it out for the fraud it is.
Unless your initials are G.O.D. no one will ever know why events in Iraq are where they are today but that silly one trick pony claim McCain - and Palin - continue to make is almost insulting in its blatant fraud and deceit.
The reasons for the decline in violence COULD have any number of factors that are responsible for it. A few of them in no particular order of importance:
#1. US greenbacks ... aka $$$
Specifically, where we paid / bribed the hard line Sunni insurgents into either chilling or shifting their attention onto Al Qaeda instead of us. This was only possible because it coincided with the "Awakening" movement, brought about by Al Qaeda overplaying their hand and turning the population against them with their brutal tactics. And the Sunnis finally realized that it made more sen$e to work with us than against us in rebuilding their country.
#2. Ethnic cleansing. So many of the neighborhoods in Baghdad and other key cities had been so thoroughly ethnically cleansed that the populations of large areas were now made up of completely homogenous Sunni or Shiite segments. There was no one left in the near vicinity to fight with. ( I still think there is looming a huge day of reckoning when those forced out attempt to reclaim their homes and businesses that have been taken over by others. )
#3. Time. The population needed a rest after several years of particularly vicious and horrific acts of violence during the civil war. This only works though in conjunction with the other factors. As we've seen over and over, civil wars can continue indefinitely.
#4. More US boots on the ground. Adding another 30,000 troops - or whatever number you choose - probably didn't hurt, but in a country of over 27 million, this could be the least significant factor of all. It basically just returned us to a former troop level of late 2005? For McCain to incessantly parrot this idiotic point is a tribute to the ignorance of the sheeple who believe it.
If nothing else, it merely emphasizes how completely wrong Dumbya, Cheney and Rumsfeld got it when they ignored the recommendations of the Army, which called for a much larger occupation force. And leaves McCain open for how wrong he got the case for invading Iraq in the first place.
#5. Cease fire agreements with the Mahdi Army militia of Muqtada al-Sadr and no doubt others. This probably translates into US $$$$ bribing them to stand down ... and possibly some power sharing agreement.
No doubt there are many other factors but McCain should just drop his Surge claim ... or acknowledge that it is composed of a complex mix of factors that no one will ever be able to fully explain. Even if you're a McCain follower, you have to cringe every time he trots out this one inane point.
Unless your initials are G.O.D. no one will ever know why events in Iraq are where they are today but that silly one trick pony claim McCain - and Palin - continue to make is almost insulting in its blatant fraud and deceit.
The reasons for the decline in violence COULD have any number of factors that are responsible for it. A few of them in no particular order of importance:
#1. US greenbacks ... aka $$$
Specifically, where we paid / bribed the hard line Sunni insurgents into either chilling or shifting their attention onto Al Qaeda instead of us. This was only possible because it coincided with the "Awakening" movement, brought about by Al Qaeda overplaying their hand and turning the population against them with their brutal tactics. And the Sunnis finally realized that it made more sen$e to work with us than against us in rebuilding their country.
#2. Ethnic cleansing. So many of the neighborhoods in Baghdad and other key cities had been so thoroughly ethnically cleansed that the populations of large areas were now made up of completely homogenous Sunni or Shiite segments. There was no one left in the near vicinity to fight with. ( I still think there is looming a huge day of reckoning when those forced out attempt to reclaim their homes and businesses that have been taken over by others. )
#3. Time. The population needed a rest after several years of particularly vicious and horrific acts of violence during the civil war. This only works though in conjunction with the other factors. As we've seen over and over, civil wars can continue indefinitely.
#4. More US boots on the ground. Adding another 30,000 troops - or whatever number you choose - probably didn't hurt, but in a country of over 27 million, this could be the least significant factor of all. It basically just returned us to a former troop level of late 2005? For McCain to incessantly parrot this idiotic point is a tribute to the ignorance of the sheeple who believe it.
If nothing else, it merely emphasizes how completely wrong Dumbya, Cheney and Rumsfeld got it when they ignored the recommendations of the Army, which called for a much larger occupation force. And leaves McCain open for how wrong he got the case for invading Iraq in the first place.
#5. Cease fire agreements with the Mahdi Army militia of Muqtada al-Sadr and no doubt others. This probably translates into US $$$$ bribing them to stand down ... and possibly some power sharing agreement.
No doubt there are many other factors but McCain should just drop his Surge claim ... or acknowledge that it is composed of a complex mix of factors that no one will ever be able to fully explain. Even if you're a McCain follower, you have to cringe every time he trots out this one inane point.
If you think it was only about another 30,000 troops - as McCain incessantly rants - then you have earned your sheeple badge.
The Shop
But that's the beauty of politics ... and ignorance.
No one has said the Surge has not worked. But the actual components of it and the reasons for its success go far beyond the simplistic claim of McCain that it was nothing more than a matter of throwing another 30,000 troops into the fray. That's just a stupid campaign slogan he uses on the sheeple.
And I would guess there are more than a few in the Pentagon that think ( privately of course ) that we did get a little lucky. It was quite possibly the final attempt to salvage the situation after several years of things spiralling out of control.
And don't make ridiculous assumptions about others you don't know here.
B. That things have always been under control there.
C. That anyone here doesn't already know our troops want to win / want to finish the job.
D. That anyone here wants us to wave the white flag.
Are you disputing that any of the factors I have posted earlier had a role in the reduction of violence in Iraq? Were you even aware of any of them?
BTW - to further complicate trying to determine causes for the reduction in violence .... the early success of the “Awakening Movement" began in the al-Anbar Province in 2006 ... long before any troop escalations.
The actual sheik who helped form the Awakening, Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi, was assassinated in September 2007, after the troop escalation had begun.
And then there's the super secret, hush-hush weapon? or data? that the Pentagon has reportedly employed to target opposition leaders that Woodward hinted about on 60 Minutes. How did that factor into the Surge?
classic
Luck, good planning, superb execution etc.... in the end it doesn't matter "the Surge" worked.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2008/mar/17/baghdad.city.of.walls
Got another question. Last night during the debate Palin brought it up, and Ive heard this before. "John McCain knows how to win a war" If Im not mistaken it was said both times as if he had won a war at sometime in his life. Did I miss a war somewhere that he won? And if those that make this claim are simply saying that he has the "knowledge" of how to win a war, then maybe he should tell George Bush, Gen Patrais etc.
Pit Row
duh
maybe we need some troops in obama's neighborhood?
Not being a smartass, just curious.
You so clueless that you did not know Malaki (sp?) has said he wants us to set up a timeline and leave?
August 25, 2008 -- Updated 1918 GMT (0318 HKT)
Iraqi PM demands 'specific' U.S. pullout timeline
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said Monday there will be no agreement on a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq unless it includes a "specific" timeline and is not "open-ended."
Speaking with tribal leaders, sheikhs and other prominent figures, al-Maliki said U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have agreed that there would be no foreign soldiers in Iraq after 2011 but that some "outstanding issues" remain, according to a statement released by his office.
One issue the two sides have been working on involves the U.S. effort to keep U.S. troops in Iraq immune from Iraqi laws.
The two sides have discussed a proposal that would lift immunity for private contractors, making them subject to Iraqi laws.
Al-Maliki's statement Monday said he "will not allow the spilling of the blood of the sons of Iraq by granting open immunity."
White House spokesman Tony Fratto, in a written statement, said discussions are continuing "as we have not yet finalized an agreement."
"Our two countries are discussing goals for when Iraqi forces can meet the security needs of their own country, enabling U.S. forces to return home," Fratto said.
He added: "We're optimistic that Iraq and the U.S. can reach a mutual agreement on flexible goals for U.S. troops to continue to return on success -- based on conditions on the ground -- and allow Iraqi forces to provide security for a sovereign Iraq."
And many of those factors had little to do with McCain's or the Pentagon's actions. That makes it "idiotic".
Maybe a better term for it would be "political".
Both sides do it. I just am sick of hearing McCain/Palin trot that particular one out every chance they get. And I think BO should have found a better way to acknowledge the reduction in violence. But it becomes a no-win situation as anything he says will be turned upside down as not supporting the troops or something equally silly.
Post a reply to: The Surge -