(PV) A new message: "We can win!"

[justgotback]

I guess many folks that are left leaning are saying "uh oh!" , when stories such as this one comes out.

It is pretty bad, when you hate the President so much you hope America fails in Iraq. Regardless of what political side you fall on, that is a sad position to be in. I am thrilled to read a story such as this:

The 'Surge' Is Succeeding




By Robert Kagan
Sunday, March 11, 2007; Page B07

A front-page story in The Post last week suggested that the Bush administration has no backup plan in case the surge in Iraq doesn't work. I wonder if The Post and other newspapers have a backup plan in case it does.
Leading journalists have been reporting for some time that the war was hopeless, a fiasco that could not be salvaged by more troops and a new counterinsurgency strategy. The conventional wisdom in December held that sending more troops was politically impossible after the antiwar tenor of the midterm elections. It was practically impossible because the extra troops didn't exist. Even if the troops did exist, they could not make a difference.

U.S. soldiers and Iraqi national police officers patrol the Shiite enclave of Sadr City in Baghdad on Tuesday. (By Maya Alleruzzo -- Associated Press)

Four months later, the once insurmountable political opposition has been surmounted. The nonexistent troops are flowing into Iraq. And though it is still early and horrible acts of violence continue, there is substantial evidence that the new counterinsurgency strategy, backed by the infusion of new forces, is having a significant effect.
Some observers are reporting the shift. Iraqi bloggers Mohammed and Omar Fadhil, widely respected for their straight talk, say that "early signs are encouraging." The first impact of the "surge," they write, was psychological. Both friends and foes in Iraq had been convinced, in no small part by the American media, that the United States was preparing to pull out. When the opposite occurred, this alone shifted the dynamic.
As the Fadhils report, "Commanders and lieutenants of various militant groups abandoned their positions in Baghdad and in some cases fled the country." The most prominent leader to go into hiding has been Moqtada al-Sadr. His Mahdi Army has been instructed to avoid clashes with American and Iraqi forces, even as coalition forces begin to establish themselves in the once off-limits Sadr City.
Before the arrival of Gen. David Petraeus, the Army's leading counterinsurgency strategist, U.S. forces tended to raid insurgent and terrorist strongholds and then pull back and hand over the areas to Iraqi forces, who failed to hold them. The Fadhils report, "One difference between this and earlier -- failed -- attempts to secure Baghdad is the willingness of the Iraqi and U.S. governments to commit enough resources for enough time to make it work." In the past, bursts of American activity were followed by withdrawal and a return of the insurgents. Now, the plan to secure Baghdad "is becoming stricter and gaining momentum by the day as more troops pour into the city, allowing for a better implementation of the 'clear and hold' strategy." Baghdadis "always want the 'hold' part to materialize, and feel safe when they go out and find the Army and police maintaining their posts -- the bad guys can't intimidate as long as the troops are staying."
A greater sense of confidence produces many benefits. The number of security tips about insurgents that Iraqi civilians provide has jumped sharply. Stores and marketplaces are reopening in Baghdad, increasing the sense of community. People dislocated by sectarian violence are returning to their homes. As a result, "many Baghdadis feel hopeful again about the future, and the fear of civil war is slowly being replaced by optimism that peace might one day return to this city," the Fadhils report. "This change in mood is something huge by itself."
Apparently some American journalists see the difference. NBC's Brian Williams recently reported a dramatic change in Ramadi since his previous visit. The city was safer; the airport more secure. The new American strategy of "getting out, decentralizing, going into the neighborhoods, grabbing a toehold, telling the enemy we're here, start talking to the locals -- that is having an obvious and palpable effect." U.S. soldiers forged agreements with local religious leaders and pushed al-Qaeda back -- a trend other observers have noted in some Sunni-dominated areas. The result, Williams said, is that "the war has changed."
It is no coincidence that as the mood and the reality have shifted, political currents have shifted as well. A national agreement on sharing oil revenue appears on its way to approval. The Interior Ministry has been purged of corrupt officials and of many suspected of torture and brutality. And cracks are appearing in the Shiite governing coalition -- a good sign, given that the rock-solid unity was both the product and cause of growing sectarian violence.
There is still violence, as Sunni insurgents and al-Qaeda seek to prove that the surge is not working. However, they are striking at more vulnerable targets in the provinces. Violence is down in Baghdad. As for Sadr and the Mahdi Army, it is possible they may reemerge as a problem later. But trying to wait out the American and Iraqi effort may be hazardous if the public becomes less tolerant of their violence. It could not be comforting to Sadr or al-Qaeda to read in the New York Times that the United States plans to keep higher force levels in Iraq through at least the beginning of 2008. The only good news for them would be if the Bush administration in its infinite wisdom starts to talk again about drawing down forces.
No one is asking American journalists to start emphasizing the "good" news. All they have to do is report what is occurring, though it may conflict with their previous judgments. Some are still selling books based on the premise that the war is lost, end of story. But what if there is a new chapter in the story?

[Frenchy]

I don't think anyone will argue that there has been some success, but how do you maintain it? You have to have a central government that's on the same page, and that ain't happenin'.

[justgotback]

Originally Posted by Frenchy

I don't think anyone will argue that there has been some success, but how do you maintain it? You have to have a central government that's on the same page, and that ain't happenin'.

Not yet. It will however.

[Powerman]

This is what I want to know. I'm being serious. While many are not glowing with the results, it is safe to say the surge has had an effect. So let's just say it worked.

Many want to pull out now, but we have been waiting for the news on the surge. Some that admit it is working want to start the withdrawal now. Petraus has said that his belief is it is working and does not want to do any real withdrawals till Spring.

However, when the surge began, the Pentagon said the surge can't be maintained past Spring. We really had to scramble to get the troops for the surge. (Extended deployments, shorter off times, more guard troops on the front line.) We knew that then. So Petraus saying we should keep it till Spring isn't a big breakthrough.

So there are some that still believe we have not secured the country, we have merly targeted troubled spots, and the enemy just relocated.

What happens when we have to draw down???

What happens if the combatants are just regrouping and reorganizing??? They have known all along what our time line is. Bush has maintained all along that we can't let the enemy know our time line.

I'm not trying to rain on your parade. I really want to know what you think of this because you are there. The surge is a tactical maneuver, which appears to be sucsessful at quieting violence. There appears to be some cooperation with us to root out AQ. Yet the security forces are not making much head way, and the Government seems to be unable to unite Iraqis. I still want to know how we are going to win the war if we can't maintain current troop levels without a draft, or indefinite tours.

[Frenchy]

Originally Posted by justgotback

Not yet. It will however.

Got both your fingers crossed?

[justgotback]

Originally Posted by Powerman

This is what I want to know. I'm being serious. While many are not glowing with the results, it is safe to say the surge has had an effect. So let's just say it worked.

Many want to pull out now, but we have been waiting for the news on the surge. Some that admit it is working want to start the withdrawal now. Petraus has said that his belief is it is working and does not want to do any real withdrawals till Spring.

However, when the surge began, the Pentagon said the surge can't be maintained past Spring. We really had to scramble to get the troops for the surge. (Extended deployments, shorter off times, more guard troops on the front line.) We knew that then. So Petraus saying we should keep it till Spring isn't a big breakthrough.

So there are some that still believe we have not secured the country, we have merly targeted troubled spots, and the enemy just relocated.

What happens when we have to draw down???

What happens if the combatants are just regrouping and reorganizing??? They have known all along what our time line is. Bush has maintained all along that we can't let the enemy know our time line.

I'm not trying to rain on your parade. I really want to know what you think of this because you are there. The surge is a tactical maneuver, which appears to be sucsessful at quieting violence. There appears to be some cooperation with us to root out AQ. Yet the security forces are not making much head way, and the Government seems to be unable to unite Iraqis. I still want to know how we are going to win the war if we can't maintain current troop levels without a draft, or indefinite tours.

Iraq is a large country. In fact it is bigger than Germany. So to say the country is secure isn't a mis statement. There are trouble pockets, but as a whole the country of Iraq is pretty much secure. The Iraqis are still being trained, and plugged into areas that we have killed and ran out the AQ elements and insurgents. In the past the Iraqis were not able to hold the areas on their own. Now, with the addtion of new police and military from the Iraqis they are beginning to hold these places on their own without our help. It is a growing trend and the more success they have the less likely we will have to remain. It is taking time, but it is going to happen. Look back at how long it took us to rebuild Germany and sort out their political situation. It took nearly ten years to weed out all of the Nazis from the government and police. Once again, Iraq is bigger than Germany, and a very corrupt society. It is taking some time, but I believe the end result will be worth the time and effort.

[Devil Dawg]

Originally Posted by Frenchy

Got both your fingers crossed?

Shouldn't have to cross fingers, just believe in our troops and let them do the job they volunteered for. Save all defeatist attitudes for politicians that lean to port.

[justgotback]

Originally Posted by Devil Dawg

Shouldn't have to cross fingers, just believe in our troops and let them do the job they volunteered for. Save all defeatist attitudes for politicians that lean to port.

+1

[eric_t12]

Robert Kagan

this guy is from the PNAC. check out their website. read about them.

they've been pushing for all out war with iraq since at least 1998; and have been behind the war since it started, obviously.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/robertkaganbio.htm

i'm not dismissing the surge, but listening to this guy say its working is like listening to Don King say one of his fighters is the best...

http://www.newamericancentury.org/global-032303.htm
An article (not by kagan, but by his organization) describing our 'duties' and our 'preeminent role in the world.'

[Powerman]

Originally Posted by justgotback

Iraq is a large country. In fact it is bigger than Germany. So to say the country is secure isn't a mis statement. There are trouble pockets, but as a whole the country of Iraq is pretty much secure. The Iraqis are still being trained, and plugged into areas that we have killed and ran out the AQ elements and insurgents. In the past the Iraqis were not able to hold the areas on their own. Now, with the addtion of new police and military from the Iraqis they are beginning to hold these places on their own without our help. It is a growing trend and the more success they have the less likely we will have to remain. It is taking time, but it is going to happen. Look back at how long it took us to rebuild Germany and sort out their political situation. It took nearly ten years to weed out all of the Nazis from the government and police. Once again, Iraq is bigger than Germany, and a very corrupt society. It is taking some time, but I believe the end result will be worth the time and effort.

Thanks. I have always said that I want this to succeed and our troops to come home. A healthy Iraq is what is best for the U.S. Period. I have never said otherwise.

What I take issue with is our leadership's ability to make this happen. You will never be able to convince me that our misteps and mistakes have not caused this to go on longer, and costed more than it should have. If we can't win, we need to cut our losses. I we can, we have an obligation to clean up our mess.

I really do hope this is a turrning point. Failure in Iraq would be disasterous for us. I feel our leadership has failed us. (Both sides) Success in Iraq will rest squarely on the shoulders of our troops. I disagree with many things you have said. However, you and many troops like yourself has always been willing to see this through to the end. I would have no problem saying you were right and I was wrong. Stay safe.