Measuring the Success of the Surge (Split from Fannie/Freddie thread)

[ParanoiA]

Obama wouldn't admit the surge worked, so I doubt any of his religious followers will either.

 

I'm curious how AIG is going to work out. Will that be another bail-out successfully predicted as "implied" government backing, if this loan thing doesn't work out?

 

The financial market sure is a mess. I love it. It's what we need and what we deserve. We're made up of credit junkies and hacks and the credit market had to take a hit at some point. There is a risk to loaning money to people with bad credit, yet over the years it has become easier and easier to qualify poor credit scores. How does this happen? There is no such thing as risk if no one gets screwed exercising this risk.

 

Personally, this hits me pretty hard. We really need to qualify for some kind of mortgage by January, or so of next year. From what I'm reading, it will be a rough ride, and we may not qualify. That's going to hurt.

 

But the bigger picture is that maybe this will have a desirable psychological effect - kind of like how the great depression motivated your grandmother to save every scrap of anything worth anything and to embrace a frugile lifestyle. Maybe this credit crash will "right" the ship, remind us that we can't keep borrowing against the future, that eventually you really do have to pay for it. Maybe credit will burn us just enough that we are more responsible with it. Use it for mortgages, autos - and cut it out with splurging, theraputic shopping, and etc with money we haven't earned yet.

[john5746]

Obama wouldn't admit the surge worked, so I doubt any of his religious followers will either.

 

Things seem to be going well, as in I don't hear much about Iraq and troop deaths. I really don't know if things are better and what better means though. The invasion went well also, we rolled in there pretty quick like a knife through butter.

[iNow]

Different topic, but the surge reduced violence. It didn't "work," as working prior to the surge had been defined by local political reconciliation and american troops being able to leave without causing chaos. Per the original milestones and objectives, it's failed, but not to reduce violence.

 

What does the word "work" mean? Also, why is everybody forgetting to mention how important the Anbar Awakening was in the process?

 

Whatever. Surge reduced violence. Nobody has failed to acknowledge that. The difference is that we all seem to define "worked" rather differently, and anyone who disagrees gets labelled as "leftie" or "religious followers" or "unpatriotic" and disregarded.

[ParanoiA]

Different topic, but the surge reduced violence. It didn't "work," as working prior to the surge had been defined by local political reconciliation and american troops being able to leave without causing chaos. Per the original milestones and objectives, it's failed, but not to reduce violence.

 

What does the word "work" mean? Also, why is everybody forgetting to mention how important the Anbar Awakening was in the process?

 

Whatever. Surge reduced violence. Nobody has failed to acknowledge that. The difference is that we all seem to define "worked" rather differently, and anyone who disagrees gets labelled as "leftie" or "religious followers" or "unpatriotic" and disregarded.

 

I don't know about unpatriotic, but definitely leftie and religious followers comes to mind. I call it how I see it, and I see democrat teammates dismiss the Surge the way creationists dismiss evolution. They seem to think it must solve everything in order to be credited - like the way creationists seem to think evolution must have an answer to everything to be credited.

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/08/AR2008080802918.html

 

Given the divisive debate over the Iraq war, perhaps it was inevitable that the accomplishments of the recently concluded "surge" would become shrouded in the fog of 30-second sound bites. Too often we hear that the dramatic security improvement in Iraq is due not to the surge but to other, unrelated factors and that the positive developments of the past 18 months have been merely a coincidence.

 

To realize how misleading these assertions are, one must understand that the "surge" was more than an infusion of reinforcements into Iraq. Of greater importance was the change in the way U.S. forces were employed starting in February 2007, when Gen. David Petraeus ordered them to position themselves with Iraqi forces out in neighborhoods. This repositioning was based on newly published counterinsurgency doctrine that emphasized the protection of the population and recognized that the only way to secure people is to live among them.

 

 

The surge did not create the first of the tribal "awakenings," but it was the catalyst for their expansion and eventual success. The tribal revolt took off after the arrival of reinforcements and as U.S. and Iraqi units fought to make the Iraqi people secure.

 

The surge has worked to bring violence down to a stand still and has complimented rebellions against Al Queda and foreign insurgency, and that's still not crediting all of the dynamics here.

 

The fallacy seems to be equating The Surge with the war. If the war isn't "successful", well then the the surge isn't successful either - and that's nonsense. The Surge is a campaign, not the war, that has dramatically turned things around like nothing we've been able to accomplish over there. Petraeus did a bang up job in planning and tactics, and deserves our thanks and appreciation.

 

You can be against the war, like I am, and still recognize success and give people the credit they deserve.

 

I won't expect that from those who have suspended individual thought and have pledged allegiance to a party.

[Pangloss]

Right. You wanna talk about parsing definitions, just ask a Democrat whether the Surge worked!

[iNow]

The surge has worked to bring violence down to a stand still and has complimented rebellions against Al Queda and foreign insurgency, and that's still not crediting all of the dynamics here.

Agreed.

 

 

The Surge is a campaign, not the war, that has dramatically turned things around like nothing we've been able to accomplish over there. Petraeus did a bang up job in planning and tactics, and deserves our thanks and appreciation.

Agreed.

 

 

You can be against the war, like I am, and still recognize success and give people the credit they deserve.

Agreed.

 

 

I won't expect that from those who have suspended individual thought and have pledged allegiance to a party.

Agreed.

 

 

Now, back to the point I actually made and which has yet to receive response, the criteria for success that were set before the surge started was to provide "breathing room" so they could work out a coalition government to end their "civil war." Yet, little to no political progress was/has been made among the major political factions.

 

 

 

 

So, I say again, it has not "worked," it has just reduced violence (which is good, but was not the primary objective), and it's not partisan to want results, and to achieve our stated objectives, so shove it up your asses if you think I'm bowing to some religiously political mindset and "parsing my words" so as not to admit some greater truth.

 

My comments are neither liberal nor conservative, leftie or rightie, democrat or republican... they are pragmatic.

[ParanoiA]

Now, back to the point I actually made and which has yet to receive response, the criteria for success that were set before the surge started was to provide "breathing room" so they could work out a coalition government to end their "civil war." Yet, little to no political progress was/has been made among the major political factions.

 

You're spinning again. Breathing room was provided, period. The Surge doesn't get its success from how well the breathing room was utilized - that's not the military's jurisdiction. And even if it was it wouldn't matter since there are many players here that we have no control over - remember? We're not supposed to be imperialists. We're supposed to give them the respect of representation and at least the semblence of running their own country and that means a distribution of power, not a consolidated force that can push through our agenda.

 

So, I say again, it has not "worked," it has just reduced violence (which is good, but was not the primary objective), and it's not partisan to want results, and to achieve our stated objectives, so shove it up your asses if you think I'm bowing to some religiously political mindset and "parsing my words" so as not to admit some greater truth.

 

And I say again, it has worked brilliantly to create the atmosphere for reconciliation, and a straight drop in violence. As good as you can achieve in a war, particularly a war like this one. I'm sorry if the atmosphere is being wasted by politics as usual, but it was provided. The Surge did what it was supposed to do.

 

My comments are neither liberal nor conservative, leftie or rightie, democrat or republican... they are pragmatic.

 

I would say, but I shoved it all up my ass like you requested above.

Edited September 16, 2008 by ParanoiA

[Pangloss]

So, I say again, it has not "worked," it has just reduced violence (which is good, but was not the primary objective), and it's not partisan to want results, and to achieve our stated objectives, so shove it up your asses if you think I'm bowing to some religiously political mindset and "parsing my words" so as not to admit some greater truth.

 

I disagree, I think it has given them exactly that -- breathing room for long-term political progress, much of which will take years, if not decades, but which is very much more possible now because of the surge. And if you don't believe me, watch Obama take full advantage of it once he takes office.

 

I'll split this off to a separate thread.

[iNow]

Okay, well you guys provide some interesting points. You clearly define success as the reduction in violence whereas I define success in terms of political advancement. Looking at it a little differently after reading your responses, the military cannot be held responsible for political advancement.

 

We all agree that the surge reduced violence. I just never saw the reduction in violence as the reason we put our troops in harms way. Of course sending in our well trained men and women will result in less violence, but the question now becomes, "What next?" We can't just keep sending in troops, so I see it as more of a displacement... an extension of the final solution being sought as opposed to a end in and of itself.

 

I'll meet you half way. It met half of its objectives by giving breathing room. The other half is noticably lacking, but is less of a military issue and more of a political one (and the bigger of the two if you ask me).

[john5746]

Obama wouldn't admit the surge worked, so I doubt any of his religious followers will either.

 

Wrong.

 

http://www.military.com/news/article/obama--says-iraq-surge-successful.html

 

Appears everyone agrees.

[iNow]

I was so pissed off about being lumped into some ideological bucket that I forgot to even question the assertion itself, which it turns out was false anyway.

[Pangloss]

I'll meet you half way. It met half of its objectives by giving breathing room. The other half is noticably lacking, but is less of a military issue and more of a political one (and the bigger of the two if you ask me).

 

Seems reasonable to me. Certainly political progress needs to continue if Iraq is to have any chance at all, and I don't think anyone would disagree that the job isn't finished by a long shot.

[ParanoiA]

Wrong.

 

http://www.military.com/news/article/obama--says-iraq-surge-successful.html

 

Appears everyone agrees.

 

Well that's definitely better than what I saw on O'reilly.

 

I guess the difference is whether The Surge is a military operation, or a military-political operation. Military operations usually support political operations, but we don't usually lump the two together to judge the military side of it. That's what has my head scratching here. For some reason, we're lumping the two together and I believe it's because people don't to admit success in Iraq. So they tie "The Surge" into the bigger picture, which is, of course, bleak and wrong and etc.

 

This is the closest I've ever seen Obama to answering the damn question when he's asked. He always does a Palin and words his answer how he wants instead of saying, yes or no, and then completing his sentence.

 

If the Surge lowered the violence dramatically and supported rebellions and helped to create a climate the government can operate in, then that's a successful operation. I say it worked. I say the politicians are blowing the breathing room created for them. He should say, "Yes, the Surge worked, but the political side has failed, miserably.". Then he gets points for admitting it worked, and he gets points for reminding everyone that this is still a mess.

 

I was so pissed off about being lumped into some ideological bucket that I forgot to even question the assertion itself, which it turns out was false anyway.

 

It's only false if you refuse to separate the military operation from political ones. I just thought "The Surge" was always in reference to the military operation. I can't imagine judging it any differently.

[iNow]

It is a tough question. The military was sent in so political progress had the opportunity to be made. However, the military objective of less violence was achieved. I grant that, always have. You can see that just looking back at my first few posts.

 

The difficulty comes from the fact that the military cannot be held responsible for political progress, yet that's the goal in question.

 

It depends on how we define success. If we define the purpose of the operation as a reduction of violence, they did it. If we define the purpose of the operation as political progress, they failed.

 

So, it "sort of" worked. I think most of us are in agreement all around, and we're getting too caught up on this "the surge worked" or "the surge didn't work" nonsense. The military clearly did its part. The primary goal of sending in our military and moving the political situation forward, however, was not achieved.

[ParanoiA]

Well, at least we are rational enough to agree on that point. I will choose my words carefully when referencing the successes and failures of the surge.

[bascule]

I'll now say the Surge worked, although I think support from Shiekhs played an important role in the Surge's effectiveness, and it's impossible to gauge what the outcome would've been without the Surge. To a certain degree it's a case of confirmation bias/post hoc ergo propter hoc ("Well, things are better in Iraq, the Surge must be working like a charm!"), although I doubt the outcome would've been as positive without it.

 

Also, this is a must-read for anyone who hasn't seen it:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2729584

 

Direct link here:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/images/us/how_to_win_in_anbar_v4.pdf

 

It's a plan for how to win in Anbar, created by a US soldier who was killed in Iraq in 2006.

 

His solution: engage the Sheikhs and get them on your side.

[Saryctos]

I'll now say the Surge worked, although I think support from Shiekhs played an important role in the Surge's effectiveness, and it's impossible to gauge what the outcome would've been without the Surge. To a certain degree it's a case of confirmation bias/post hoc ergo propter hoc ("Well, things are better in Iraq, the Surge must be working like a charm!"), although I doubt the outcome would've been as positive without it.

 

Also, this is a must-read for anyone who hasn't seen it:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2729584

 

Direct link here:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/images/us/how_to_win_in_anbar_v4.pdf

 

It's a plan for how to win in Anbar, created by a US soldier who was killed in Iraq in 2006.

 

His solution: engage the Sheikhs and get them on your side.

 

The real problem? no president has had facial hair in quite some time. more mustache, more Iraqi friendship

[iNow]

So, you're saying we should have elected Hillary Clinton?

[bob000555]

The thing I find weird about the surge is that John McCain supported it by saying that we should “give the president the benefit of the doubt.” Granted the surge did end up working(religious followers my a$$) but there was no way McCain could have known for cretin it would work at the time. Nothing to strange so far but this was around the time when the republicans’ talking point was that democrats didn’t support the troops, so hears the strange part McCain’s basic argument at the time would have been that he and his party supported the troops much more then the democrats because they where willing to put the troops life’s on the line supposedly to give a man who demonstrated his ability to fail in all matter military the benefit of the doubt.(that was a very long run on sentence but I’m to tired to split it up.)