Murtha: "The Surge is Working"

[Pangloss]

Gee.

 

After making a trip to Iraq last week, Murtha, D-Pa., told reporters Thursday, "I think the surge is working."

 

He went on to "clarify" his remarks, finding plenty of things to criticize, particularly in the lack of political solidity in the government.

 

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ibDeMEMDEYv4V-eqfWH0lbqZe6RwD8T8CL702

 

"The military surge has created a window of opportunity for the Iraqi government," Murtha said Friday. "Unfortunately, the sacrifice of our troops has not been met by the Iraqi government and they have failed to capitalize on the political and diplomatic steps that the surge was designed to provide."

 

He's quite right, of course. But I suspect he will now feel the wrath of the far-left portion of the blogosphere, which he so pandered to earlier.

 

ABC News reported last night that in the month of November Iraq was actually safer for troops, by twice, than Afghanistan.

[iNow]

Saying the surge is working is a bit of a narrow focus on the actually situation we face in Iraq. Violence is down relative to before the surge began. That's good. Now, what are going to do with it? Republicans are openly seeking bills that will ensure US military presence over the next 50 years (those bills describe building of bases and infrastructure for our troops). My understanding is that they've been seeking these since the beginning of the war, but are only now being open about the plans.

 

So... is the surge working? Well, there is less violence. But what are we going to do now? It's time for follow-up. Too bad we haven't been engaged in more active diplomacy the entire time...

 

There was a slightly more "rounded" view presented this morning on Meet the Press, where Senator Jim Webb, who also just returned from Iraq, articulted quite well what is happening, what has happened, and what needs to happen.

 

Did you catch that?

 

Transcript: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22065949/

 

MR. RUSSERT: Iraq, is the military surge working?

 

SEN. WEBB: I think this is—that’s a very complicated question in its—in its connotations, and I’d like to take a few minutes and, and go through it, if, if I may.

 

MR. RUSSERT: Please.

 

SEN. WEBB: There are certain elements in Iraq that I think have benefited from the surge, and I think there are other elements that have had their own momentum. And I think it’s important to make those distinctions. There are a lot of pieces in, in motion over there. I would look at four different components that have come together to give us an interval here, a very important interval, where hopefully we can move forward with some of the overarching diplomatic approaches that I and some other people have been advocating for a long time.

More at the link above.

[Pangloss]

Well first of all, regardless of what bills are passed, there's simply no way for Republicans to actually guarantee military presence in Iraq "for the next 50 years". That's just fear-mongering, and it should not be pandered to by passing it along.

 

Second, any action taken by congress will be unable to pass unless Democrats agree to it. They're in the (slight) majority, remember? Republicans can "seek" whatever they want; what they actually succeed at will be at the will of both parties.

 

Third, and more to the point, I agree that the question of whether the surge is working is not the only important issue, and not really even the main issue, with regard to the future of Iraq. Of main interest to me at the moment, however, is what this says about the Democratic presidential candidates, who spent millions of dollars and thousands of hours telling us that the surge had zero chance, and the efforts of many in congress (Democrats and Republicans) to stop the surge and pull out the troops before NOW -- before THIS VERY POINT IN TIME.

 

How about before we figure out what we're going to do next, we first recognize what we just did, and did correctly? For once! Or is that just not possible in this country anymore?

[PhDP]

Democrats should have had to guts to oppose this stupid war in the first place. They didn't... They were probably afraid to look "unpatriotic", in the end, they were simply short-sighted. It's really great so see that so many people are willing to do stupid things just to avoid this kind of label, it makes me think of high school were there was tons of rules to leans to avoid the dreaded "gay" label.

 

When it was clear that it was a mess, they started putting everything they got in the anti-war effort... Which is also clearly short-sighted, I mean, yea, the rationale for the war was bad, yea, it's not going very well, does it mean America should get out and leave the Iraqi with the mess the invasion has created ? What a solid argument...

 

...Populism.

[iNow]

How about before we figure out what we're going to do next, we first recognize what we just did, and did correctly? For once! Or is that just not possible in this country anymore?

Pardon me if I'd rather discuss what still must be done to find resolution to this fuster cluck instead of popping champagne corks because violence is temporarily down due to huge troop presence.

 

We just had positive results from our surge. Yay. Congrats to all involved. Can we move on now to the harder parts, and start the diplomacy efforts that should have begun in 2003?

[Skye]

While increasing troop number from roughly 150,000 to 170,000 troops in Iraq doesn't sound like much of a difference, the number of combat brigades has increased from 15 to 20. That's a third more combat troops in the country, most of which have gone into the capital. So the surge is deceptively large when in comes to the numbers of combat troops in Baghdad, where the conflict is now centred, and that's a pretty simple reason why it has been effective.

[Pangloss]

Pardon me if I'd rather discuss what still must be done to find resolution to this fuster cluck instead of popping champagne corks because violence is temporarily down due to huge troop presence.

 

We just had positive results from our surge. Yay. Congrats to all involved. Can we move on now to the harder parts' date=' and start the diplomacy efforts that should have begun in 2003?

[/quote']I understand, but I have to point out that the surge was supposed to BE the "harder part". After all, Democrats insisted that the diplomacy part was easy -- all we had to do to solve that was ELECT THEM.

 

I see the inability to recognize our achievements as the LARGER of the two problems. Wars come and go. But political divisions like the one we're dealing with right now in this country can destroy nations. In my opinion, the single biggest problem we have in this country right now is not that George Bush is in charge, but that people THINK that the biggest problem we have in this country right now is that George Bush is in charge.

[iNow]

Well first of all, regardless of what bills are passed, there's simply no way for Republicans to actually guarantee military presence in Iraq "for the next 50 years". That's just fear-mongering, and it should not be pandered to by passing it along.

Now I'm confused. Who's fear mongering? The Republicans (for instance, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell) asking for this (bases in Iraq for the next 50 years so we can occupy it like Korea) on the floor? Is that fear mongering? Or, are you accusing the Dems who discuss this openly, suggesting that the mere act of talking about it is fear mongering?

[Pangloss]

We don't occupy Korea. We have troops there. There is a difference.

 

In fact I'm actually glad you brought up Korea. If Iraq became the success story that Korea has become, I'd be tickled pink. Why wouldn't I be?

[iNow]

We don't occupy Korea. We have troops there. There is a difference.

 

In fact I'm actually glad you brought up Korea. If Iraq became the success story that Korea has become, I'd be tickled pink. Why wouldn't I be?

 

Occupy = poor word choice. My bad.

 

So... back to my question: Who is fear mongering exactly?

[john5746]

We don't occupy Korea. We have troops there. There is a difference.

 

In fact I'm actually glad you brought up Korea. If Iraq became the success story that Korea has become, I'd be tickled pink. Why wouldn't I be?

 

I don't know, would Vietnam be considered a better success story than Korea? I mean South Korea is great, but North Korea is total crap. At least Vietnam doesn't require us to be there in the middle.

[ecoli]

I don't know, would Vietnam be considered a better success story than Korea? I mean South Korea is great, but North Korea is total crap. At least Vietnam doesn't require us to be there in the middle.

And since the 80's Vietnam was smart enough to implement it's own free market policies, and now it's one of the fastest growing economies... Contrast that to North Vietnam.

 

Why does everything we touch (with our military) turn to crap, and why haven't we learned?

[Pangloss]

Our troops have been in Germany and Japan for 62 years. EVERYBODY PANIC!

 

The issue that was brought up here is whether a "50 year" presence in Iraq is a bad thing. I would suggest that it is an irrelevent thing. The relevent thing would be whether our troops are fighting and dying there, as opposed to simply watching a geographic demarkation, training local troops, etc.

[CDarwin]

We don't occupy Korea. We have troops there. There is a difference.

 

In fact I'm actually glad you brought up Korea. If Iraq became the success story that Korea has become, I'd be tickled pink. Why wouldn't I be?

 

And (South) Korea is a success story not because of the US military but because of economic development. I'm not arguing with you or anything. Just putting that out there.

 

The issue that was brought up here is whether a "50 year" presence in Iraq is a bad thing. I would suggest that it is an irrelevent thing. The relevent thing would be whether our troops are fighting and dying there, as opposed to simply watching a geographic demarkation, training local troops, etc.

 

That's the best role for the United States to have coming out of this, I think.

[Fred56]

Come on, of course the US is in Iraq to stay, and this was the intention all along. Just how many billions worth of equipment and construction (of bases and airfields, etc) would they need to leave behind, again?

A permanent and 'stabilising' presence is the doctrine. The regime has changed, but the political and sociological, educational, administrative, and so on entities are still very much learning to walk. They need help, and unfortunately the very presence of foreign troops is a (big) part of the problem. But then, I would say that there have been one or two 'unforseen' outcomes already.

The additional troops (calling it a 'surge' makes me think of a washing machine, for some reason), may have achieved something. I think this is probably a lot harder to estimate or measure than many politicos want us all to believe. Maybe Iraq is sorting itself out or following its own post-apocalypse recovery, and the US military is like, redundant, for all we (or anyone else) can tell. By which I mean that claims about success (in any war) definitely require a large pinch of salt.

[iNow]

Our troops have been in Germany and Japan for 62 years. EVERYBODY PANIC!

 

The issue that was brought up here is whether a "50 year" presence in Iraq is a bad thing. I would suggest that it is an irrelevent thing. The relevent thing would be whether our troops are fighting and dying there, as opposed to simply watching a geographic demarkation, training local troops, etc.

 

I hate to keep beating the horse, but it is clearly not yet dead. You still haven't adderssed the question posed to you. Can you please clarify who exactly you are accusing of fear mongering?

[Pangloss]

The fear mongering is in the far left taking the perfectly moderate and logical consideration, in a democratic legislative body, of military bases in Iraq (and long-term presence) and parlaying that into the implication that our troops are going to fight and die in Iraq for the next fifty years, and there's nothing we can do about it.

[iNow]

Thank you for the response. I was getting a tiny bit uncomfortable pressing you so hard (considering the response I've received when doing so in the past ) and was choosing my words artfully. I just didn't see that happening by Senator Webb when I listed his appearance on Meet the Press in my post (the one to which you responded stating it was fear mongering).

 

It's amazing how we can each look at the same situations and see them from completely different perspectives. Ah... the beauty of relativity in a subjective world.

[bascule]

Hmmm...

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,314203,00.html

 

"I think the surge is working' date=' but that's only one element"

 

[...']

 

"The fact remains that the war in Iraq cannot be won militarily, and that we must begin an orderly redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq as soon as practicable."

[Pangloss]

I made that point in the OP, bascule.

 

It's amazing how we can each look at the same situations and see them from completely different perspectives. Ah... the beauty of relativity in a subjective world.

 

True enough, and I respect your opinion on the war being the more relevent subject. I admit that I have a hard time looking past my prejudice that the far left isn't really anti-war, they're just anti-right. I'm sure I'm not alone in this regard, but anything that impugnes my judgement does also have the effect of lessening the objective value of my opinion on any related subject. If I am to criticize others for this, then I can hardly let myself off the hook.

[bascule]

I made that point in the OP, bascule.

 

*sigh* Of course you did, why bother linking quotes which haven't yet been quoted, clearly it's to make the same point you did...

[iNow]

Bascule - Was there something in your link which you saw as different from the one in the OP, or was your intent otherwise? Your post just had a link and a short quote, with your response of "Hmmm." I don't really follow where the disagreement is coming from in this particular circumstance.

[bascule]

I don't really follow where the disagreement is coming from in this particular circumstance.

 

Neither do I. Guess I can't even agree with Pangloss without him taking issue.

[ParanoiA]

Republicans are openly seeking bills that will ensure US military presence over the next 50 years (those bills describe building of bases and infrastructure for our troops). My understanding is that they've been seeking these since the beginning of the war, but are only now being open about the plans

 

They've been open about the plans for a long, long time...called PNAC. It's disgusting.

 

Our troops have been in Germany and Japan for 62 years. EVERYBODY PANIC!

 

The issue that was brought up here is whether a "50 year" presence in Iraq is a bad thing. I would suggest that it is an irrelevent thing. The relevent thing would be whether our troops are fighting and dying there' date=' as opposed to simply watching a geographic demarkation, training local troops, etc.[/quote']

 

But the obvious difference I see here is that our military infrastructure in Germany and Japan followed a war started by those countries, finished by ours. I don't really have a problem with that, seeing as how once we declare war and embrace prejudicial combat from a seemingly justified position - then the spoils of war are what they are.

 

A nice deterent for aggressive countries is to take their country away when they attack you, unjustified. Although we didn't do that, having a military presence there is obviously understandable by their own citizens - or at least can appreciate the history behind it.

 

In Iraq, however, we weren't attacked - let alone attacked unjustified. There was never a reason to war with them. There still isn't it. Bases and so forth: just more empire building.

 

So, I see that as a big difference in how we're received there. The fact that 62 years of military presence in Germany and Japan has gone largely unnoticed - accepted - does not mean that 50 years of presence in Iraq will be the same accepted scenario. The former arguably deserved it, the latter did not.

[iNow]

It's also apples and oranges.