Will you admit that the surge is not working?

Question

2007 is the deadliest year so far for US servicepeople in iraq. Obviously the surge is as much of a failure as the rest of this ill-conceived war.
how long will conservatives keep their heads in the sand and ignore reality while Americans continue to die? when will the republican start supporting our troops?


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071106/ts_nm/iraq_usa_soldiers_dc_5

one_for_the_doctor, i gave you a link, this is the deadliest year so far, you're the one that doesn't seem able to deal with facts.

booman, looks like you're not so good with numbers either. read the article. deadliest year of the war.

freedom for all, it's absurd to compare ww2 with this iraq war. we were fighting japan for our lives in 44, they were an actual threat. as opposed to iraq which was NEVER a threat to us.
and no, just because the going gets tough doesn't mean we should bail (someone tell that to reagan about beirut, he started this whole thing when he bailed out of there and told the arabs we were wimps).
the point was that the conservatives put all their hopes in this surge, they are propagandizing us that it's working, but the truth is that it's not.

bullymommy25, you want a suggestion? i suggested way back when that this war would be a disaster, a quagmire. i suggested back then, and every day since, that it was a bad idea. let's not throw good people and money after bad. let's get the hell out, that's my suggestion. we should never have been in there in the first place, and that was obvious all along.

Answer 1

They think supporting means putting yellow ribbons on their Fords. They fail to see that the best way to support is to not get them killed.

Answer 2

It comes down to the old real estate saying, location, location, location. Lot of good things are being accomplished by putting our troops where they need to be. But that's also where the bad guys are.


From the end of 2004 through January 2007, the Multinational Force Iraq (MNF-I) strategy was focused mainly on force protection of American Forces. Units were moved to what were called "Super FOBs" (Forward Operating Bases). Camp Victory near the Baghdad International Airport was the best known.


The protection was on steroids. A mass of protective barriers, towers, patrols, counterfires, air security and the like sheltered these bases. Aside from predicable inaccurate enemy mortar fire, and (on rare occasions) direct attacks, units lived in relative peace while in the Super FOBs.


The problem was that security in the Super FOBs came at a price in mission accomplishment and contact with the enemy.


Unit patrols, each day, would move from their Super FOBs, that in many cases were miles and miles away from their areas of responsibility. Then move back again when done. A patrol was not doing its job among the people during the journeys. The Iraqi people felt that the Americans were not approachable, and even if they were, they were not around most of the time. As a result passing information to our people was difficult. Even worse, not sharing in the troubles of the neighborhoods built a wall between the Iraqis and the Americans.


Who filled the void that the Coalition's self imposed segregation left? The terrorists, insurgents, militias, criminals, death squads, and corrupt police, to name a few. In general, when the good guys went home to call mama every night, the bad guys moved in to spread death, intimidation, indoctrination, crime, and chaos around their respective areas.


Don't get me wrong: in each company zone there was always a patrol of a platoon size, but this platoon may have been covering an area with a population from 100,000 to a quarter million or more. Thirty-five Soldiers or Marines are simply not sufficient to provide security to an area of that size.


The Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), were in much the same boat. Throw in the fact that in many places the ISF were in cahoots with the bad guys, and one can easily see why the Americans were safer because of their distance form the troubled areas, and why the sectarian violence was so high (see the Brookings Institution Iraq Index [BIII], Pages 9-11). It was a matter of staying away from being in the wrong place at the wrong time

Answer 3

Robert Gibbs became asked the direct question if Obama would grant Bush credit for the surge in Iraq that labored. Gibbs would desire to no longer answer the question. gazing the spin it is being placed on the achievement indoors the Iraq conflict, it variety of feels as though the liberal speaking element would be that the surge did no longer make the version in spite of the easy actuality that it became the reality that the tribes keen to wrestle AlQueda. in ordinary words a splash hint for the seasonal poster.....the Taliban is in Afghanistan.

Answer 4

This is absolutely correct. The head lines could either say "the surge is working the number of deaths are reduced at an incredible rate" or "This is the most deadliest year of the war" are they both biased? Yes, do they report the same thing? yes.

Answer 5

I ask the same question yesterday and even showed the same link and I got a violation so be careful and exposing the truth. I admit the surge is not working. Very ill conceived to send more troops. I remember they did that in Vietnam. (Send more troops) We lost!

Answer 6

The fourth year of an occupation and we have had the highest number of U.S. deaths and yet because the one General Bush hasn't replaced, General Betrayus, says the "Surge" is working we are expected to ignore the facts on the ground?

Simple Question for koolaid drinking Bushbots:

Who has been attacked the most by insurgents in Iraq?
a) civilians
b) Iraqi security forces
c) U.S. Troops

Answer 7

The surge didn't even start at the beginning of the year. You remember all the (dems)Congress pushing it back? Had they approved this at the earliest moment this year would not have been the worst on record. Only a liberal can turn a good thing like reduced violence almost everywhere in Iraq and turn it into a defeated surrender. IDIOT!

Answer 8

That must be why ABC, NBC, CBS and several Democrats that have been to Iraq all report that the surge is working.

It hasn't even been in affect for the whole year of 2007!

So your point is moot.

Thanks For Playing!

Answer 9

Troop surge? What troops left, do you have to send there?Thought you already run out of troops/options, when it comes to Iraq.

Answer 10

1944 was the deadliest year for troops in WW2. Should we have stopped the war then instead of finishing it in 1945?

I can't believe how people like you will ignore all sense and reason because of your irrational, blind hatred of one man (GWB).

"Hate leads to the dark side" - Yoda.
If a friggin muppet gets it, why don't you?

Answer 11

I read recently that many families are moving back to Baghdad because it's safer, so I think it is working.