<p>mini, what do you think better represents the effectiveness of the surge, the opinion of individual iraqi’s or <a href=“http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-s...f?hpid=topnews[/url]”>http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-s...f?hpid=topnews</a> ?</p>
<p>I think you need to take a look at the numbers more closely. If you compare the surge and its correlation to the various components the Post measures, you’ll see that the “achievements” made are unstable. Gasoline, a substance supposedly in plentiful supply in the area, has reached a low. Crude oil exports have fluctuated, reaching its peak in July but dipping in August. The displacement numbers are a bit deceptive, because it tells you how many new civilians have been displaced over the months. It doesn’t tell you resettlement rates, or how many Iraqis have repatriated back into the country. Wonder why? And on the political front, there’s hardly progress to be made. </p>
<p>A Brookings Report recently indicated that unless Iraq takes on radical political reforms (e.g. soft partitioning proposed by Sen. Biden and others), Iraq will be vulnerable to uncontrolled population movements such as the one seen in Bosnia between 1992 and 1995. The report also shows that the internal displacement rates occurring in Iraq have triggered a rapid hardening of sectarian identities and further increased ethno-sectarian separation. Shi’a are afraid of going back to their Sunni-dominated neighborhoods, and instead are fleeing to the south. Meanwhile, Iraqis believe that their government will end up in a semi-autonomous setup with three different “states” for each sect, a reality that the Bush Administration cannot swallow.</p>
<p>The surge cannot work without meaningful political progress on the part of the Iraqis, and a reality check on the part of the Bush Administration. Unfortunately, it seems as if neither will happen anytime soon.</p>
<p>Here’s some more facts/graphs about the surge working, but I’m sure the dems will try to play this off. Ignoring facts and repeating what people say seems to be their mode of argumentation. </p>
<p><a href=“http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Slides_Petraeus_Testimony.pdf[/url]”>http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Slides_Petraeus_Testimony.pdf</a></p>
<p>I’m sure you’ll be able to discount these too huh? They must be altered, manipulated, because god forbid the surge is working…that just isn’t possible!</p>
<p>Also, for the sake of argumentation…whenever you say “this report says this” please cite the report…anybody can say stuff but lets try to back it up w/ the actual reports :)</p>
<p>“Forty-seven percent want American forces and their coalition allies to leave the country immediately, the survey showed, 12 points more than said so in a March poll as the troop increase was beginning. And 57 percent _ including nearly all Sunnis and half of Shiites _ said they consider attacks on coalition forces acceptable, a slight increase over the past half year.”</p>
<p>What’s interesting about this last number (Anbar was oversampled) is that the “nearly all Sunnis” includes the Sunni tribesmen we are busy arming. </p>
<p>“mini, what do you think better represents the effectiveness of the surge, the opinion of individual iraqi’s”</p>
<p>Most definitely the scientifically conducted polling of Iraqi citizens. Without any question. They are the ones now down to two hours of electricity a day (according to Ambassador Crocker); they are the ones with children dying in Baghdad hospitals; they are the ones without clean drinking water; they are the ones being “ethnically cleansed” under General Petraeus’ control; they are the 1.2 million uprooted from their homes in Iraq; they are the two million in exile. They are the ones who control the southern oil fields.</p>
<p>And they are ones who think it is an increasingly good idea to kill the hostile, aggressive occupiers.</p>
<p>Nobody doubts the security progress that has been made in Iraq. But in GEN Petraeus’ own words: “Political progress will take place only if sufficient security exists.” Since there has been little political progress, one can only assume that a) Sufficient security exists, and political progress has yet to take place due to another factor, or b) Sufficient security does not exist. What do you propose the remedy is, then? Send in another surge to see if we can protect the al-Maliki government from everything save acts of God?</p>
<p>The truth of it is, GEN Petraeus speaks of the Iraqi security forces as one unit, much like our own volunteer army. But unlike conventional military forces, this one has to take into consideration the ethno-sectarian sensitivities. How many Shi’a units are trustworthy in Sunni territory? The Iraqi soccer team, despite its recent achievement, had several members in hiding due to sectarian threats of violence. How many units are “Tier 1” ready, meaning ready to operate without any American support? </p>
<p>Iraq is making security progress; it’s bound to happen especially if the Iraqi security forces have nowhere to go but up. I think GEN Petraeus did an excellent job laying out the positive effects of the surge. I think Ambassador Crocker did a terrible one, reflecting on the lack of proper governance, or even some remote semblance of a functional unified government in Iraq.</p>
<p>Oh, and if you want the report on soft partitioning:
<a href=“http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/analysis/june2007iraq_partition.htm[/url]”>http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/analysis/june2007iraq_partition.htm</a></p>
<p>It’s short, around 40 pages. There are more extensive studies but this is the most succinct one. (And the most comprehensive case for soft partitioning … also where I found the analysis of Iraq re: internal displacement in a controlled v. uncontrolled setting.) Originally proposed by Les Gelb and Sen. Biden, but expounded upon by O’Hanlon.</p>
<p>If you listened to the testimony today, you’d know that the Defense Dept refuses to fully explain the methodology behind its figures. As the Washington
Post pointed out last week <a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/05/AR2007090502466.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/05/AR2007090502466.html</a>, there’s widespread disagreement with the way Petraeus counts:</p>
<p>"The intelligence community has its own problems with military calculations. Intelligence analysts computing aggregate levels of violence against civilians for the NIE puzzled over how the military designated attacks as combat, sectarian or criminal, according to one senior intelligence official in Washington. “If a bullet went through the back of the head, it’s sectarian,” the official said. “If it went through the front, it’s criminal.” </p>
<p>“Depending on which numbers you pick,” he said, “you get a different outcome.” Analysts found “trend lines . . . going in different directions” compared with previous years, when numbers in different categories varied widely but trended in the same direction. “It began to look like spaghetti.”</p>
<p>This doesn’t leave me with any trust in those numbers!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well I can’t help you if you judge progress by peoples opinions rather then pure facts and statistics…but hey whatever allows you to reach the predetermined outcome you so desire. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>1) It’s not a black and white picture…it’s not “we have security” or “we don’t have security”</p>
<p>2) The report and the two recent links I provided show that US casualties are down, Iraqi casualties are down, electricity production is up, Iraqi Police presence is up, attacks are down…THAT SOUNDS LIKE PROGRESS. </p>
<p>3) What gets me is that people expect some quick fix…like the surge was supposed to bring about a clean and resolute end to this war in a few months. It’s not going to be like that…the point of the surge was to begin to bring about the reforms needed for Iraq to become a stable country and from everything laid out it looks like it is HEADED IN THAT DIRECTION. </p>
<p>4) Thank you for the link :)</p>
<p>Stay the course. (Especially if it’s somebody else’s kid/father/husband/mother/wife doing the dirty work.)</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>President Bush saying he was waiting to hear what General Petraeus had to say is like Edgar Bergen saying he was waiting to hear what Charlie McCarthy had to say.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the context of the current Iraqi government, yes it is. If you’re looking at the general security of Iraq, then no, it’s not black and white, but rather an ascending scale. But the question is, “Is there enough security so that the al-Maliki government can be a) fully functional, or at the very least b) partially functional?” GEN Petraeus’ answer (and I believe him) is YES. The problem, as I’ve stated before, is NOT GEN Petraeus and the MNF, but the Iraqi government and the lack of effort by the Bush Administration to effect change to it. If there is a secure environment, and the U.S.-propped government cannot function, then something else must be wrong. (Maliki, and his unabashed, selfish support for the Dawa Party). This is why (according to your ABC-linked charts) the number of government-related attacks has proportionally increased. While overall attacks are down, insurgents know that they can foster instability with the least amount of damage by targeting the weak Iraqi government. That, combined with an inefficient Prime Minister, spells trouble for Iraq, both politically and in terms of security.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nobody is denying a negative correlation (increase in troops, decrease in violence) between the surge and the effects you cite. I never said, “Hey, the troops are there, but nothing’s happening!” The point is, the surge isn’t enough. It isn’t the cure-all that the President kept stating it would be, and GEN Petraeus’ report has hardly the impact anticipated during the hype leading up to his report. There are factors, major factors, outside of the security realm that are in dire need of remedy in Iraq, yet the Bush Administration is not willing to admit it, drawing the primary focus onto the security aspects of Iraq.</p>
<p>By the way, the numbers always look better in the summer. If you don’t correct for seasonality effects, you draw the false conclusion that there’s a broad trend showing reduced violence.</p>