http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSCOL24813120071022?rpc=92 Iraq is calming down and the strategy of Bush is working. This has proved to be indeed better than the strategy of cutting and running. See Spidergoat? I told you this would happen Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
We have been saying all along that there weren't enough troops to secure the country. However, this is not changing the basic political climate. If you think things are really turning around in Iraq, you are fooling yourself. We have increased bombing from the air by 400% in an attempt to make Bush's surge look like it's accomplishing something.
70% is certainly something. It doesn't matter what they're doing, the strategy is working Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You conveniently leave out this part of the story: the Interior Ministry said on Monday. Maybe they are right, and maybe they aren't. The rest of the story pointed out several bombings and firefights. There are certainly other points of view. Iraqis' Own Surge Assessment: Few See Security Gains Barely a quarter of Iraqis say their security has improved in the past six months, a negative assessment of the surge in U.S. forces that reflects worsening public attitudes across a range of measures, even as authorities report some progress curtailing violence. Iraqis' own views can differ from military evaluations of the surge for good reason. Public attitudes are not based on a narrow accounting of more or fewer bombings and murders, but on the bigger picture -- which for most in Iraq means continued violence, poor services, economic deprivation, inadequate reconstruction, political gridlock and other complaints.
Actually I heard general petraeus himself assures this on TV. Iraqis will never say good about anything, I don't care what they say; let the numbers talk Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Probly cause we have killed 70% of the Iraqi peoplePlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hmm, so if they really did kill of 70% of the population you'd think that was a good thing ? :bugeye:
I acknowledge some positive effects of increasing the number of US troops, but this is no real solution. It was supposed to buy room from Iraqis to find a political solution, which is going nowhere. Average Number Daily Insurgent Attacks In Iraq: Nov 06-Feb 07 - 148.9 Average Number Daily Insurgent Attacks In Iraq: Feb-May 07 - 159.8 In fact, the surge increased fatalities when it was first started, with 69 (749 wounded) in Jun-2007, one of the highest of any month. Now deaths are down to typical levels, so it's nothing to brag about. This september showed casualties about the same as February of 2006, before the surge.
You're doing exactly what you accuse the other side of doing: Playing with numbers and showing what you want in order to make a political argument. If violence is down, it's down. Further more you, like your party, have been against the surge from the start. So why should anyone listen to you?
Yesterday, I saw on TV that the number of civilian casualties in Jan 07 was about 1900, wheras in this October it was only about 200.
countezero, If the surge made casualties go up, then they go back down again, does it really mean anything? I am quoting real numbers. Even if I believed in the surge, it is working to help Iraq achieve political reconciliation? Where's your numbers on that?
How do you call Sunni tribes fighting al-qaida all over Iraq and joining the political process? We've been throught this before, you just keep repeating yourself.
Isn't the war in which someone tried to convince us that the violence was down by omitting car bombs, or suicide bombs, or something like that? Okay, anyway, we have to account for government-speak. Since the measure of "violence" is so murky coming from this administration, I thoiught I would note an old conventional wisdom regarding budget cuts. Statement: "I cut twenty percent from the department budget." Meaning: "I cut twenty percent from the expected increase in the department's budget." In effect: If the department budget was a billion dollars last year, and the projected budget is $1.1b, that twenty percent cut represented a $20m cut from the increase, so that a $1b budget reduced by 20% has actually grown to $1.08b. I don't know if they can actually get away with this argument these days. It was a popular argument back before Clinton. I would think people might catch on ....
