Did the troop surge in Iraq work?

[Tuuvi]

Yes I know the Iraq war is a very old topic, but I was thinking about it on my way home from work today and I was wondering because I'm not very informed on the subject...

Did the troop surge in Iraq work? I remember everybody made a very big deal out of it, how the troop surge was wrong, it wouldn't work, we should be pulling out of Iraq, etc. etc. etc. President Bush went ahead with it anyway if I remember correctly and then a couple of months later I heard that violence levels were way down. However I don't think I ever heard anyone say that the troop surge worked, not even on conservative talk radio.

Also while we're at it has the Iraq war been "won"? Personally I feel that it has, but then again I don't know very much about the situation over there. I guess I could always do my own research and find out the answers to these questions on my own but I want to start posting here more because I'm pretty much a lurker and I'm interested to see what you guys think.

[CountArach]

What would you define as "work"?

[Samurai Waki]

It may have worked a little bit, but paying off insurgents has worked better.

[spmetla]

It may have worked a little bit, but paying off insurgents has worked better.

What he said. It did provide a little more security and underline our commitment to stay but the rejection of Al Queda by most of the Sunni tribes did far more. At least it allowed the coalition to send troops to work with the local tribal militias without having to reduce forces too much elsewhere.

[Tuuvi]

What would you define as "work"?

Did it have a postive impact on the overall situation in Iraq.

[CountArach]

Did it have a postive impact on the overall situation in Iraq.

Well it is all relative then. Better in terms of more stable? Sure. Worse than a complete withdrawal would have been? I imagine so.

[PanzerJaeger]

Yes, it worked.

[Furunculus]

some metrics by which we may judge:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Iraq

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Wa...ge.27s_results

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Report_...uation_in_Iraq

[Centurion1]

Well it is all relative then. Better in terms of more stable? Sure. Worse than a complete withdrawal would have been? I imagine so.

That is a totally subjective statement based completely off whether you support the war or not.

[Xiahou]

That is a totally subjective statement based completely off whether you support the war or not.

That's more charitable than I would have been- more like it was a complete nonsense statement that was inconsistent with reality.

Anyone remember what our current VP proposed?

[CountArach]

That is a totally subjective statement based completely off whether you support the war or not.

Yes, but any definition of "work" is, by its very nature, subjective, so your criticism is completely invalid.

[Centurion1]

Anyone remember what our current VP proposed?

what that he and obama came up with the surge.

please at least give bush credit for things he actually did no matter what else he did.

Yes, but any definition of "work" is, by its very nature, subjective, so your criticism is completely invalid.

well no where in that entire statement is the word "work" used so your point is also invalid.

we were talking about whether it was positive.

[CountArach]

well no where in that entire statement is the word "work" used so your point is also invalid.

Read the title of the thread, please.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I would suggest that it is working, though I would also assert that a changed approach that was co-implemented explains more of the success.

Pacification requires a LOT of patrolling, so the increase in troops that allowed for that was certainly a plus. In addition, a combination of carot and stick is required -- you have to crush the foreign/terror components and any domestics who attack, but you should also offer real amnesty to those insurgents who opt to stop fighting you (and you may have to pay for some of this to happen). We and the Iraqis have done a good deal of this and are fairly far ahead on security, though by no means is Iraq truly secure as yet.

However, even more important is for the locals to start believing that something resembling progress can/will/is happening. This takes a fair measure of security (patrolling), a degree of infrastructure enhancement, and clear signs that control and real sovereignty is being/will be passed back to the indigenous population. This part is still in progress.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I somewhat lost interest in all the details of Iraq some time ago.

From what I understand, the surge was an improvement. Violence breeds violence, peace is the first prerequisite for development and all that.

The dummy version of Seamus' post directly above then.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yes, I think it worked, but only because it was a part of a much larger plan that basically involved doing what should have been done in the beginning. So, I suppose, in that sense you could say the surge failed because it underlined the abject failure of previous policies.

[Centurion1]

Read the title of the thread, please.

you did not make it clear your post was an extension of the thread title therefore it does not necessarily mean you are speaking of the same thing. you never acknowledged you were speaking of "work" only whether you thought the surge was positive which is in and of itself a totally subjective term as well.

[Strike For The South]

It wastes more American lives for a fruitless cuase.

No

[PanzerJaeger]

So, I suppose, in that sense you could say the surge failed because it underlined the abject failure of previous policies.

That doesn't even make sense.

[spmetla]

I think he's saying it failed because its success showed how bad the prior policy was...yes? So if it had failed to do anything it would be a success if the policy was to continue to fail...

This reminds of Catch 22, the old man who is explaining that Italy is winning the war because it is succeeding in being defeated!

[CountArach]

you did not make it clear your post was an extension of the thread title therefore it does not necessarily mean you are speaking of the same thing. you never acknowledged you were speaking of "work" only whether you thought the surge was positive which is in and of itself a totally subjective term as well.

Thank you for arguing my point. Both are totally subjective terms and as such criticising me for stating a subjective opinion is utterly superfluous.

[Aemilius Paulus]

It wastes more American lives for a fruitless cuase.

No

I like how you failed to mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths


Why should we care so much about the American troops? They all willingly joined the Armed Forces, killed some people perhaps, came under the banner of an aggressor nation, a global superpower taking on a small state, and then cannot stop talking when one or two soldiers die. While the civilians are caught up in this mess and die by the trainloads as a result of the struggle...


I mean, do not get me wrong. For one, I have immense respect for vets. I am not anti-American. I am not a pacifist. But this treatment of Iraqi vs. US deaths bothers me.


Godwin's Law take on this: What of that mining accident story, the one that happened in the Greater Reich, where it was said 'x number of people and unknown amount of Untermensch died'? Sometimes the newscasts here in US resemble such a remark far too close for comfort. I know I am stretching it, but I swear, that is the attitude I constantly hear being unconsciously/semi-consciously repeated.

[Strike For The South]

I like how you failed to mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths


Why should we care so much about the American troops? They all willingly joined the Armed Forces, killed some people perhaps, came under the banner of an aggressor nation, a global superpower taking on a small state, and then cannot stop talking when one or two soldiers die. While the civilians are caught up in this mess and die by the trainloads as a result of the struggle...


I mean, do not get me wrong. For one, I have immense respect for vets. I am not anti-American. I am not a pacifist. But this treatment of Iraqi vs. US deaths bothers me.


Godwin's Law take on this: What of that mining accident story, the one that happened in the Greater Reich, where it was said 'x number of people and unknown amount of Untermensch died'? Sometimes the newscasts here in US resemble such a remark far too close for comfort. I know I am stretching it, but I swear, that is the attitude I constantly hear being unconsciously/semi-consciously repeated.

I mentonied Americans only is becuase I know them, I went to school with them, I played football with them, I have laughed with them, cried with them, gotten drunk with them and now they are dying because someone in some think tank in D.C. said it would serve Americas position in the ME to invade Iraq.

And that sticks in my craw

America only pays lip service to these guys, we care more about pointless things than there lives. People now just don't want to talk about Iraq. EVEN THOUGH THEY SENT THEM THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

And that sticks in my craw

America really doesn't know what sacrafice is anymore. We aren't at war, our troops are at war, we are at the mall. We've become desensitized to war and that is a tragedy becuase when push comes to shove that isn't going to serve us well

And that sticks in my craw

I have real ties to Americans and that's why I mentioned them. I feel for the Iraqis to but I dont know there suituation. I see Americas everyday and I can't stand it.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Well, I know why you only mentioned Americans, and you gave all the right reasons. But I had to use your post for a wider point, even if there was very little to grab on to

[Centurion1]

People care more about their own.

As Strike said the worst part of Iraq is they send em there but then they tiptoe around the whole place.

[Strike For The South]

People care more about their own.

As Strike said the worst part of Iraq is they send em there but then they tiptoe around the whole place.

tiptoe? I don't want our toes there in the first place.

[Centurion1]

i understand that. but having the issue and then not doing anything about it is even worse.

[Strike For The South]

i understand that. but having the issue and then not doing anything about it is even worse.

What issue? The issue about our troops being there? Lets take them out

[a completely inoffensive name]

What issue? The issue about our troops being there? Lets take them out

And let the terrorists know they've won and have them bring the fight to the homeland? Brilliant! And I suppose if we just got rid of all the guns, everyone will just stop killing each other.

[CountArach]

And let the terrorists know they've won and have them bring the fight to the homeland? Brilliant! And I suppose if we just got rid of all the guns, everyone will just stop killing each other.

The war was never about terrorism... The whole fact is that, given that our initial strategy did not 'work' due in large part to these terrorists, changing our strategy to soak up more resources/manpower and play into their Holy War rhetoric is exactly what they want. The terrorists have won and will continue to win as long as we remain there. Iraq has provided them with better recruitment propaganda than anything else I could think of.