70% of Iraqis Say Surge Made Security Worse

[mini]

<p>From the ABC poll released September 10th:</p>

<p>“70% believe the U.S. increase in the number of its forces in Baghdad and surrounding provinces in the past six months has made “security in areas where these forces have been sent” worse; 18% say better.”</p>

<p>These are the people “on the ground”. </p>

<p>Killings have not declined. Meanwhile, General Petraeus has overseen a massive “ethnic cleansing” of Baghdad, with hundreds of thousands new refugees since the increase in hostile, aggressive occupation forces. </p>

<p>The one area where he claims "progress’ - Anbar - was NOT part of the so-called surge. Rather, the U.S. armed the tribal sheikhs who then turned around and have hijacked medical convoys to sell on the black market, and thousands of children are dying in Baghdad hospitals as a result. Yup - “progress”. </p>

<p>"BAGHDAD – Helping organize, train and equip nearly a quarter-million of Iraq’s security forces is a daunting task. Doing so in the middle of a tough insurgency increases the challenge enormously, making the mission akin to repairing an aircraft while in flight – and while being shot at. Now, however, 18 months after entering Iraq, I see tangible progress. Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt from the ground up. </p>

<p>The institutions that oversee them are being reestablished from the top down. And Iraqi leaders are stepping forward, leading their country and their security forces courageously in the face of an enemy that has shown a willingness to do anything to disrupt the establishment of the new Iraq. </p>

<p>In recent months, I have observed thousands of Iraqis in training and then watched as they have conducted numerous operations. Although there have been reverses – not to mention horrific terrorist attacks – there has been progress in the effort to enable Iraqis to shoulder more of the load for their own security, something they are keen to do. The future undoubtedly will be full of difficulties, especially in places such as Fallujah. We must expect setbacks and recognize that not every soldier or policeman we help train will be equal to the challenges ahead. </p>

<p>Nonetheless, there are reasons for optimism. Today approximately 164,000 Iraqi police and soldiers (of which about 100,000 are trained and equipped) and an additional 74,000 facility protection forces are performing a wide variety of security missions. Equipment is being delivered. Training is on track and increasing in capacity. Infrastructure is being repaired. Command and control structures and institutions are being reestablished. </p>

<p>Most important, Iraqi security forces are in the fight – so much so that they are suffering substantial casualties as they take on more and more of the burdens to achieve security in their country."</p>

<p>General Petraeus - September 26, 2004</p>

<p>Listen to his testimony today - he could read his Washington Post article from 2004, and no one would know the difference.</p>

[weenie]

<p>I liked Frank Rich’s column (which can be read here in its entirety: <a href=“http://welcome-to-pottersville.blogspot.com/2007/09/frank-rich-as-iraqis-stand-down-well.html[/url]”>http://welcome-to-pottersville.blogspot.com/2007/09/frank-rich-as-iraqis-stand-down-well.html&lt;/a&gt;) yesterday in the NY Times. Lots of review, but of course most Americans still aren’t really paying any attention.</p>

<p>

It will be all 9/11 all the time this week, as the White House yet again synchronizes its drumbeating for the Iraq war with the anniversary of an attack that had nothing to do with Iraq. Ignore that fog and focus instead on another date whose anniversary passed yesterday without notice: Sept. 8, 2002. What happened on that Sunday five years ago is the Rosetta Stone for the administration’s latest scam…</p>

<p>That was the morning when the Bush White House officially rolled out its fraudulent case for the war. The four horsemen of the apocalypse — Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and Rice — were dispatched en masse to the Washington talk shows, where they eagerly pointed to a front-page New York Times article amplifying subsequently debunked administration claims that Saddam had sought to buy aluminum tubes meant for nuclear weapons. “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud,” said Condoleezza Rice on CNN, introducing a sales pitch concocted by a White House speechwriter…</p>

<p>What followed was an epic propaganda onslaught of distorted intelligence, fake news, credulous and erroneous reporting by bona fide journalists, presidential playacting and Congressional fecklessness. Much of it had been plotted that summer of 2002 by the then-secret White House Iraq Group (WHIG), a small task force of administration brass charged with the Iraq con job…</p>

<p>Today the spirit of WHIG lives. In the stay-the-surge propaganda offensive that crests with this week’s Congressional testimony of Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, history is repeating itself in almost every particular. Even the specter of imminent “nuclear holocaust” has been rebooted in President Bush’s arsenal of rhetorical scare tactics…</p>

<p>The new WHIG is a 24/7 Pentagon information “war room” conceived in the last throes of the Rumsfeld regime and run by a former ABC News producer. White House “facts” about the surge’s triumph are turning up unsubstantiated in newspapers and on TV. Instead of being bombarded with dire cherry-picked intelligence about W.M.D., this time we’re being serenaded with feel-good cherry-picked statistics offering hope. Once again the fix is in. Mr. Bush’s pretense that he has been waiting for the Petraeus-Crocker report before setting his policy is as bogus as his U.N. charade before the war. And once again a narrowly Democratic Senate lacks the votes to stop him…</p>

<p>In this new White House narrative, victory has been downsized to a successful antiterrorist alliance between Sunni tribal leaders and the American military in Anbar, a single province containing less than 5 percent of Iraq’s population. In truth, the surge had little to do with this development, which was already being trumpeted by Mr. Bush in his January prime-time speech announcing the surge…</p>

<p>No doubt General Petraeus, like Dick Cheney before him, will say that his own data is “pretty well confirmed” by classified intelligence that can’t be divulged without endangering national security. Meanwhile, the White House will ruthlessly undermine any reality-based information that contradicts its propaganda, much as it dismissed the accurate W.M.D. findings of the United Nations weapon experts Hans Blix and Mohammed ElBaradei before the war. General Petraeus intervened to soften last month’s harsh National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq (.pdf). Last week the administration and its ideological surrogates were tireless in trashing the nonpartisan G.A.O. report card that found the Iraqi government flunking most of its benchmarks…</p>

<p>When the line separating spin from reality is so effectively blurred, the White House’s propaganda mission has once more been accomplished. No wonder President Bush is cocky again. Stopping in Sydney for the economic summit after last weekend’s photo op in Iraq, he reportedly told Australia’s deputy prime minister that “we’re kicking ass.” This war has now gone on so long that perhaps he has forgotten the price our troops paid the last time he taunted our adversaries to bring it on, some four years and 3,500 American military fatalities ago.

</p>

<hr>

<p>On a slightly separate topic, why don’t Americans care that suddenly the military is “running” this war? Isn’t the United States supposed to have a civilian-led military? When did the Pres start taking orders from the military instead of the other way around? Why doesn’t that TERRIFY anybody?! Hello Conservatives! Where art thou? </p>

<p>Oh lord, let us elect a President that is more than a drinking buddy next time around. :(</p>

[mini]

<p>Well, we know what will happen next. “It will take 12 to 18 months before the Iraqi forces are ready to take over security.” We’ve been hearing that since October 2003. It’s the longest 12-18 months in history. It is now 23 months since Murtha called for redeployment. I don’t think there’s ANYONE, Republican or Democrat, who would say the situation in Iraq today is better than it was in October 2005.</p>

<p>Next, the Democrats will roll over and play dead.</p>

<p>(When’s the last time you heard a General call himself a failure and a fool, and take responsibility for ethnic cleansing on his watch? ;))</p>

[weenie]

<p>Actually, I think the whole thing is a build up to an invasion of Iran… :(</p>

[weenie]

<p>Since no one seems to have the stomach to even start a thread on the Petraeus, ummm, what do you call it, presentation (?), I will honor Wonkette by quoting her wonderful summary of this historic event here:</p>

<p>

…And when did presidents start taking orders from a freaking army officer? Last we heard, the president told the army what to do, not the other way around. Anyway, let’s all remember this holy day when the eighth or ninth army commander in Iraq said some crap on Capitol Hill that he was told to say by the White House.

;)</p>

[LaxAttack09]

<p>

…And when did presidents start taking orders from a freaking army officer? Last we heard, the president told the army what to do, not the other way around. Anyway, let’s all remember this holy day when the eighth or ninth army commander in Iraq said some crap on Capitol Hill that he was told to say by the White House.

</p>

<p>The people who know how to do the job best are generally the ones who can best give orders. Who do you think knows more about winning a war…a president or a highly ranked general? </p>

<p>I also like how the anti-war crowd spins this. If Patraeus says the war wasn’t going as well as planned they would be all over him being a general and on the ground…however if he says the surge is slowly working, well, he’s just a mouth piece. It’s funny how much the anti-war crowd is rooting for things to go bad in Iraq…kind of embarassing as well.</p>

[weenie]

<p>“the anti-war crowd”</p>

<p>You mean like 80% of America and 99.9% of the rest of the wrold?</p>

[Allmusic]

<p>Rotfl! :p</p>

[LaxAttack09]

<p>Yep…like 80% of America and 99% of the world. If you’re basing your arguments on the fact that “majorities don’t lie” then you might wanna try something else because, at at ime, 80% of Americans made up the “pro slavery” crowd as well. </p>

<p>Polls are one of the weakest forms of argumentation that can be used because 1) they are easily manipulated and 2) public opinion often doesn’t reflect the reality.</p>

<p>The democratic party would be doing much better if it didn’t look like they are rooting for US casualties in Iraq. I mean, 80% of the American populus disagrees with the war yet Guiliani and Clinton are neck and neck in the 08 race. What does that tell you?</p>

[mini]

<p>There ISN’T a war; the war ended in 2003. Now there is just a hostile, aggressive occupation, one made more aggressive by the so-called surge, which 70% of Iraqis “on the ground” say is making security worse. Who would you trust - the General in the Pork Zone or the Iraqis who daily witness the impact? </p>

<p>Petraeus said virtually exactly the same thing he said today in 2004, what else is new? The only thing that is new is that the Iraqis say, overwhelmingly, that he’s made things worse.</p>

[LaxAttack09]

<p>I trust the officers on the ground way more then the Iraqi’s on the ground. The general consensus among US officers is that the surge is slowly working and anybody who looks at the FACTS, such as death counts, power output, infrastructure, can see that things are getting better. </p>

<p>By the way, it looks like 60% of the nation is anti-war <a href=“http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm[/url]”>http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[LaxAttack09]

<p>

Now there is just a hostile, aggressive occupation

</p>

<p>Oh I see, so we should just bring all the troops home and let the dominant religious force bring a genocide upon the minority, killing hundreds of thousands if not millions, and creating a zone where terrorists operate open and free…MAKES GREAT SENSE!</p>

[Allmusic]

<p>Gonna happen anyway, Laxattack. We will be departing, and mayhem (worse than the mayhem we have delivered) will ensue. It’s just a matter of time. Our occupation will not continue indefinitely, unless the war prez declares martial law and postpones elections (indefinitely). Stranger things could happen, with the way things have been going around the good ol US of A.</p>

[mini]

<p>“The general consensus among US officers is that the surge is slowly working and anybody who looks at the FACTS, such as death counts, power output, infrastructure, can see that things are getting better.”</p>

<p>Death count is exactly the same as it was 6 months ago, and higher than it was when Murtha called for redeployment. Power output in Baghdad is now down to two hours a day, the lowest it has ever been. Medical supplies to hospitals in Iraq have disappeared (because of the “success” in Anbar). Oil fields in the south are now entirely under the control of the pro-Iranian Shiites, who would also make it virtually impossible for U.S. forces to retreat via ground to Kuwait. Refugees at an all-time high. Petraeus presides over the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad, with tens of thousands of people fleeing from their homes since the so-called “surge” began. U.S. arms to Al-Qaeda (through Saudi Arabia) continue unabated. </p>

<p>The Iraqis now from whence they speak. They have to bear it. </p>

<p>“Oh I see, so we should just bring all the troops home and let the dominant religious force bring a genocide upon the minority, killing hundreds of thousands if not millions, and creating a zone where terrorists operate open and free…MAKES GREAT SENSE!”</p>

<p>We have no moral authority to even make that judgment, one way or the other. We’re responsible for the deaths of between 1.2 and 1.7 million (most as a result of the Clinton Genocide), two million refugees in surrounding countries, 1.2 million internal refugees, thousands of children dying in Baghdad hospitals. Normalize that population for the U.S., and you have 16-20 million dead, 28 million fled to Canada and Mexico, 16 million internally displaced.</p>

<p>It’s like saying the German military post WWII should decide the future of Czechoslovakia.</p>

[weenie]

<p>With all the disagreement about the actual numbers of violent incidents in Iraq (see, for instance, <a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/05/AR2007090502466.html?hpid=topnews[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/05/AR2007090502466.html?hpid=topnews&lt;/a&gt; ) and the fact that, apparently, the current stats being used do not include: 1) Sunni on Sunni violence, 2) Shi’a on Shi’a violence, 3) Car bombs (huh?), or 4) Getting shot in the front of the head as opposed to the back of the head (no, seriously), about all we can conclude is what a sorry state this country is in that we can not trust our President, we can not trust our Congress, we can not trust the media, and, contrary to their best efforts, we will not trust the military spokesman/white house-tool General Petraeus.</p>

<p>Heaven help our loyal troops.</p>

<p><em>sigh</em></p>

[fundingfather]

<p>

You mean like 80% of America and 99.9% of the rest of the wrold?

.</p>

<p>Well, if you want to make judgements like that based on polls, first get your numbers right, and then please acknowledge that those of you who want to get out now are in the 30% minority (and the trend is that your minority group is getting smaller over time).</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>From Weenie’s WaPo source:</p>

<p>

Among the most worrisome trends cited by the NIE was escalating warfare between rival Shiite militias in southern Iraq that has consumed the port city of Basra and resulted last month in the assassination of two southern provincial governors. According to a spokesman for the Baghdad headquarters of the Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I), those attacks are not included in the military’s statistics. “Given a lack of capability to accurately track Shiite-on-Shiite and Sunni-on-Sunni violence, except in certain instances,” the spokesman said, “we do not track this data to any significant degree.”

Note that the Basra area was not part of the surge and in fact it experienced the negative surge that is being proposed by the Dems - to pull back into bases and then “let the devil sort them out”. This is what the Brits have been doing in Basra and the result is increased bloodshed. If this happens in a predominately Shia area, imagine the bloodshed where it is Sunni/Shia. But, I don’t suppose too many of you care about that as long as we are either out of Iraq or safely in our fortresses.</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>From the ABC poll:</p>

<p>

Only a quarter said their own communities have become safer in the past half year. **Every person **interviewed in Baghdad and Anbar province, a Sunni-dominated area where Bush recently visited and cited progress, said the troop increase has worsened security.

</p>

<p>When a poll’s response is 100 percent agreement on anything, I think you can safely say the the poll is BS - especially when anecdotal evidence cited by all parties from all points of view indicate the opposite is true. But, mini has his data and I’m sure he will unquestionably repeat it at least 100 times as proof of his perspective.</p>

[LaxAttack09]

<p>

Death count is exactly the same as it was 6 months ago, and higher than it was when Murtha called for redeployment. Power output in Baghdad is now down to two hours a day, the lowest it has ever been. Medical supplies to hospitals in Iraq have disappeared (because of the “success” in Anbar). Oil fields in the south are now entirely under the control of the pro-Iranian Shiites, who would also make it virtually impossible for U.S. forces to retreat via ground to Kuwait. Refugees at an all-time high. Petraeus presides over the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad, with tens of thousands of people fleeing from their homes since the so-called “surge” began. U.S. arms to Al-Qaeda (through Saudi Arabia) continue unabated.

</p>

<p>Are you pulling these #'s out of nowhere? Here’s a study the washingtonpost did that shows us deaths are down, iraqi deaths are down, iraqi’s in US custody are up, electricity output is up, iraqi’s displaced from their homes is down, Iraqi and military police deaths are down, civilian casualties are down, and attacks on oil/gas facilities are down. </p>

<p><a href=“http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/pdf/surge_090907.pdf?hpid=topnews[/url]”>http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/pdf/surge_090907.pdf?hpid=topnews&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[mini]

<p>"Between 67% and 70% of the Iraqis polled believe the surge has hampered conditions for political dialogue, reconstruction and economic development, according to the August 2007 findings. </p>

<p>More Iraqis want coalition forces to leave immediately.</p>

<p>Only 29% think things will get better in the next year, compared to 64% two years ago."</p>

<p>Yup. The Surge is working.</p>