Yes, some legislation has been passed and they are working on other legislation. I find that reporting of what is happening in Iraq has seemed to have tailed off though...
Is the surge working?
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Please tell me how going from 132,000 troops to 150,000 to 140,000 is beginning to leave?
Was the legislation passed? Is this improvement going to last now that the troop level is back to 130,000? Why the "pause" if the surge worked, why not bring the troops home now?
They've also passed some cool legislation that the current Administration probably doesn't like all that much...
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/53230/
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/53230/
Republican Math. Because the real goal was to keep people waiting for a result until after Bush leaves office.
There was a long-term plan submitted with the report that called for the surge (does anybody remember how much the left wanted them to follow that report, until they did....), it certainly doesn't call for immediate withdrawal. And I think troop levels are still higher at about 140K.
As for laws they passed, here are three of them...
http://www.topix.com/us/2008/02/iraq-passes-3-laws-u-s-wanted
Pretense built on a strawman and ignoring what actually is happening. The plan for Iraq is to pretend that Iraq doesn't exist except in the past so that no progress is reported.
I think that it is good these things are happening, hopefully we will be leaving sooner rather than later.
You said that the surge was designed to enable us to begin to leave. Please tell me how increasing the number of troops present in Iraq after the surge than were present before the surge is beginning to leave?
They lowered them from the peak. And I said that it was progress not perfection.
Look, I don't try to defend the invasion of Iraq, I just tell you what is actually happening there.
And I was wrong, it went up to 140K and dropped to 132K I think... But heck, it doesn't matter, for the first time in a long time people left early this year and were not replaced by more, and there are plans for more of the same to take place.
Anyway. Invading was bad, yes. But that doesn't mean I should ignore what has actually happened. I am sure we would have liked to ignore the USSR too, but it was reality...
OK. Try to follow along.
In January of 2007, before the surge, we had approximately 132,000 troops in Iraq.
Then, at the height of the surge we had 150,000 troops in Iraq.
In July 0f 2008, at the end of the surge, we will have approximately 140,000 troops in Iraq.
Where is the beginning to leave part? I'm afraid I'm missing it. To me it looks like we end up with more troops than a year ago which isn't beginning to leave. It's staying a bit longer.
the violence dropped off to 2005 levels, because Muqtada Al Sadr's army declared a cease fire in august 2007, for his own reasons. Not to help bush or america.
And we've been paying off and bribing former sunni insurgents to not attack us.
And the sunni and shia in many areas have been ethnically cleased, so there's a tad less of sunni on shia violence.
Politically and economically, Iraq remains a failed state.
This is not success. This is the most tragic and immoral blunder in recent memory.
And we've been paying off and bribing former sunni insurgents to not attack us.
And the sunni and shia in many areas have been ethnically cleased, so there's a tad less of sunni on shia violence.
Politically and economically, Iraq remains a failed state.
This is not success. This is the most tragic and immoral blunder in recent memory.
Socrtease
Verified User
I mentioned it in another post but...did you see that the Turks have begun a surge of their own in the Kurdish region of Iraq and the Iraqi government can't do a fucking thing about it but beg them to leave. But one more sign that the government of Iraq is a faltering sputtering mess without the ability to protect its own interests.
Socrtease
Verified User
Last I heard the Iraqi government said it would be 2014 before they could control their own borders. So at least another 6 years.
How can you say that when the numbers of artistic performances is on the rise in Baghdad? Sidewalk cafe's are starting to open up!
Where it goes from 150K to 140K. There is always overlap, but the reality is 10K have left without getting replaced.
So, try to follow along. The plan was to replace the 10K troops, however they were able to pass on their assigned area to the local army. The end of the surge would have been at 150K, instead it is at 140K. Got it? This was according to my friend the Captain (Navy Captain in the army it would be a Colonel)... He currently works at the Pentagon.
Anyway, it speaks of the end of the Surge... Previous to it there wasn't enough troops to keep security, troops will not be backfilled as they leave. At least according to what my friend says.
Which is sooner than previously stated would ever happen. Just a year ago they were talking 40 years to "quell an insurgency" on average...
Socrtease
Verified User
I think the point is we were told that AFTER the surge we would get a reduction from the ORIGINAL 132,000. You are doing Dem math here Damo. Remember when the dems used to call a smaller than expected increase in social spending a cut? We this is the same thing. Only we got the increase and now they have sent 10k home and called it a decrease in the number of troops instead of following through with their original claim that they would REDUCE the number of troops fromtheir pre surge numbers, or so they wanted us to believe.