Surge may be working, says Dem analysts

[Tex]

I'm surprised to not see this discussed anywhere on CG, given how supportive this board is of the Iraq war effort.

"Viewed from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily 'victory' but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with."

They go on:

"... the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops ... morale is high"
"... civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began ..."
"... A local mayor told us his greatest fear was an overly rapid American departure from Iraq.... "
"... things look much better than before ..."
"... In war, sometimes it’s important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so...."
"... Another surprise was how well the coalition’s new Embedded Provincial Reconstruction Teams are working...."

All is not rosy, of course. They criticize the lack of progress in the central government, and they emphasize that all is not yet won (though down, civilian casualties are still too high).

But we are winning. Don't ask Harry Reid that, though.

By the way, did I mention these guys are Democrats and critics of the war?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/op...=1&oref=slogin

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm surprised to not see this discussed anywhere on CG, given how supportive this board is of the Iraq war effort.

"Viewed from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily 'victory' but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with."

They go on:

"... the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops ... morale is high"
"... civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began ..."
"... A local mayor told us his greatest fear was an overly rapid American departure from Iraq.... "
"... things look much better than before ..."
"... In war, sometimes it’s important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so...."
"... Another surprise was how well the coalition’s new Embedded Provincial Reconstruction Teams are working...."

All is not rosy, of course. They criticize the lack of progress in the central government, and they emphasize that all is not yet won (though down, civilian casualties are still too high).

But we are winning. Don't ask Harry Reid that, though.

By the way, did I mention these guys are Democrats and critics of the war?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/op...=1&oref=slogin

If true, it would be great news. Are you hoping for a debate on that point?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

If true, it would be great news. Are you hoping for a debate on that point?

Not necessarily, just making sure people know about it. You may want to make sure your Democrat leadership is aware. I believe Harry Reid declared the surge a failure before a single additional boot had even touched Iraqi soil.

[BlueHair]

I don't care if everyone turned in their guns and peace was declared. It still would have been a waste. We shouldn't be overthrowing governments and trying to install our preferred leaders.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

I don't care if everyone turned in their guns and peace was declared. It still would have been a waste. We shouldn't be overthrowing governments and trying to install our preferred leaders.

You might be right, but you don't know for sure. No one knows what the consequences would have been had we not invaded Iraq.

How would you like both a Iran like Iraq on your hands right now. It is so easy to sit on the sidelines and say what plays should have been called after the play has been run.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by BYU71

You might be right, but you don't know for sure. No one knows what the consequences would have been had we not invaded Iraq.

How would you like both a Iran like Iraq on your hands right now. It is so easy to sit on the sidelines and say what plays should have been called after the play has been run.

Should have thrown it to the tight end.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by All-American

Should have thrown it to the tight end.

I keep thinking about the game against Stanford at LES during the Crowton years. Beck throws an interception. What an idiot Crowton was, he should have run and punted. After Stanford intercepted the ball my 6 year old granddaughter said, he shouldn't have passed it Grandpa.

We all know if Crowton had punted, BYU would have won the game.

After analyzing football games, I guess some people get tired and move on to bigger things like analyzing war strategies.

[FMCoug]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

I don't care if everyone turned in their guns and peace was declared. It still would have been a waste. We shouldn't be overthrowing governments and trying to install our preferred leaders.

But you think this is all about Bush's plan to declare himself emperor so your credibility is pretty much shot.

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by FMCoug

But you think this is all about Bush's plan to declare himself emperor so your credibility is pretty much shot.

Easy there tiger. His behavior speaks for itself. I don't understand why you give him a free pass. He is the most authoritarian president in my lifetime.

P.S. My political views are not any less credible than your religious views.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

Easy there tiger. His behavior speaks for itself. I don't understand why you give him a free pass. He is the most authoritarian president in my lifetime.

P.S. My political views are not any less credible than your religious views.

Just saw last night an interview with one of Tony Blair's closest confidants (sp). He was their for both Clinton and Bush. Remember Blair really liked Clinton and so did this guy. However, he said the image put out there that Bush is authoritarian and my way or the high way is pure bull.

Perhaps you might understand why I would think this guy would be more credible on the subject than you. I would be happy to hear a quote though from someone other than his political advesaries disagreeing with Blairs aid.