Here’s something you’ll never see a two-time Bush voter do: I’ll admit I was wrong on some of the consequences of the beloved surge in Iraq. It did coincide with a drop in violence. I was wrong about the tactical effect of the surge. The presence of US troops probably played a small role in reducing violence. The more prominent reason the violence dropped is that the ethnic cleansing was largely complete by 2006. The Shia had driven the Sunni out of Baghdad and central Iraq, and the Sunnis that are left are living in walled off ghettos or compounds. The Shia effectively won round one of the civil war.
So you are claiming coincidence with the timing of the surge, and U.S. casualties dropping off significantly shortly afterward? That's a good one. It just HAPPENED that the Shias mostly got their way by 2006 (your words), U.S. casualties continued to escalate through most of 2007 and 2008, the surge takes place, and then U.S. casualties drop to less than 1/5th the pre-surge levels in less than 2 months. But the surge only had "some consequences". What a fucking droon. What a clever, clever way of saying "I'll say I was wrong to make myself look good, without actually admitting I was wrong."
I’ve noticed that no two time bush voter and bush defender on this board has ever admitted that invading Iraq in the first place was a mistake of epic proportions. Why do you suppose I can admit an error, but Bush voters can’t even admit their war for WMD was a massive blunder?
Well, since I never supported invading Iraq in the first place, I have nothing to do with your question. And, since I have seen more than one Bush supporter on this board admit Iraq was a mistake, I can only assume you are lying about what you have seen. (As you lie above saying you were mistaken about the surge - but not really because it was a coincidence anyway.)
As for the strategic consequence of the surge, it didn’t do a God damn thing with respect to American national interest. Do the Iraqis love us more? Did we find the WMD? Did we actually achieve any measurable “victory” for American interest that is commensurate with the amount of blood and treasure expended? What exactly did we “win” in Iraq? As far as I know Americans and Iraqis are still getting the asses blown up there, the government is a corrupt tool of Shia warlords and cronies, and the occupation is still a massive recruiting tool for jihadists.
And you follow with yet more drivel of partisan ignorance. Was it the mission of the surge to find Iraqi WMDs? Iraq is far more stable now. That IS a strategic improvement, since in a much more stable region it is far easier to perform diplomatic chores. Of note is the region is SO quient you hardly ever hear it even mentioned in the news any more. Before things quieted down, it was an item of daily concern.
Also, much of the exit strategy in place now owes it's very existence to the more stable conditions brought about by the surge. (of course, since you'll quite plainly claim the relative quiet is coincidence in your partisan envelope of se3lf delusion, I guess you'll deny that advantage, too.)
Why exactly are two time Bush voters so ecstatic to cheer lead
Americans to their deaths in these “surges”? What exactly is the point? When is this glorious victory going to be achieved, and what exactly is this victory supposed to be?
Well, I cannot speak for "two time Bush voters", as I did not vote for that fucker even once. However, I also support another surge, but NOT "cheering Americans to their deaths" like you fukcing LIE about. (Afre you so fukcing totally DENSE you do not see giving the military people in place the kinds of support they need - including people to cover their flanks - will SAVE lives? Of course, you cannot see that because you have your head up the donkeys ass so far you have to look out its nostrils to see anything.
When we started this shit in 2001, I thought we were supposed to be getting bin ladin and his henchmen. Newsflash: those fuckers are in Pakistan. Iraq didn’t have anything to do with 9/11, and the Taliban, medieval and whacked as they are, didn’t have anything to do with 9/11 either. They didn’t know a god damn thing about it. They can be blamed for a lot of shit, including hosting bin laden in their country, but what the fuck is it about them that requires you to send Americans to their deaths to fight them, and to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on them?
On the waste of invading Iraq, I agree it was a stupid assed thing to do. Though I disagree with most rhetoric claiming Saddam Hussein was contained by diplomatic constraints, I also am of the firm opinion we could have dealt with him without resorting to invasion and occupation.
As for Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, you listen to media hype way too much. Bin Laden, while definitely a character of interest, is not and never has been an item of primary importance in Afghanistan. The purpose of Afghanistan was to take down the Taliban: the regime that SUPPORTED Bin Laden and the rest that masterminded and engineered the attacks of 9/11/01. Chasing down Bin Laden would have been nice, but it is not like he is the only capable leader of Al Queda. By directly supporting our enemies even in the aftermath of the attacks, the Taliban openly declared themselves our enemy. We could not and cannot allow a government to openly and defiantly support people whose declared purpose it is to damage the U.S. THAT is why we are in Afghanistan. And THAT is why we cannot leave until it is apparent that the Taliban can never return.
