Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, July 25, 2008
John Hawkins :: Townhall.com Columnist
A Look Back: What Democrats Were Saying About The Surge
by John Hawkins
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


The enormous improvement in Iraq's security situation caused by the surge has been so undeniable that even the mainstream press has started alternating between ignoring Iraq completely and acknowledging, albeit reluctantly, that the surge has put victory within reach in Iraq.

So with that in mind, it's worth taking the time to look back at what the crème de la crème of the Democratic Party has had to say about the war and the surge over the last few years.

"We cannot support the increase in troops unless George Bush disavows the NeoCon strategy and presents a new strategy. George Bush has been using the troops for the past four years trying to divide the country between those who support the war and those who do not. President Bush is trying to divide us again with his expected call this week for a 'surge' of up to 20,000 additional U.S. troops into Iraq. What the surge would do is put more American troops in harm's way, further undercut the morale of U.S. forces and risk further alienating elements of the Iraqi populace." -- Wesley Clark

"I think that the reports that you (David Petraeus) provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief. In any of the metrics that have been referenced in your many hours of testimony, any fair reading of the advantages and disadvantages accruing post-surge, in my view, end up on the downside." -- Hillary Clinton

"(The) idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong." -- Howard Dean

"We don't need a surge of troops in Iraq--we need a surge of diplomacy and politics. Every knowledgeable person who has examined the Iraq situation for the past several years--Baker and Hamilton, senior military officials, junior officers--has drawn the same conclusion--there is no military solution in Iraq. To insist upon a surge is wrong." -- Christopher Dodd

"By carefully manipulating the statistics, the Bush-Petraeus report will try to persuade us that violence in Iraq is decreasing and thus the surge is working. Even if the figures were right, the conclusion is wrong." -- Dick Durbin

"An escalation, whether it is called a surge or any other name, is still an escalation, and I believe it would be an immense new mistake." -- Ted Kennedy

"We owe our troops a strategy that is worthy of their sacrifice, and it's clear that the current strategy – the President's escalation – has failed to achieve its goal of bringing about a resolution of the fundamental conflict between Sunni and Shia." -- John Kerry

"...I'm absolutely convinced right now the surge isn't working and I'm convinced that if they don't pay attention to what I'm saying and a lot of other members of Congress are saying they're going to have a disaster on their hands..." -- John Murtha

"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse. I think (the surge) takes pressure off the Iraqis to arrive at the sort of political accommodation that every observer believes is the ultimate solution to the problems we face there. So I am going to actively oppose the president's proposal." -- Barack Obama

"The gains have not produced the desired effect, which is the reconciliation of Iraq. (This surge) is a failure. This is a failure." -- Nancy Pelosi

"I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week." -- Harry Reid

In November, when voters are trying to decide whom to trust to handle the war in Iraq, they should consider whom they want in charge: John McCain, a man who has strongly supported the troops and surge or the same group of liberal Democrats who were boosting the morale of our enemies by incorrectly claiming that the surge couldn't work.

Will we honor the sacrifices of our troops by carrying on to victory or will we allow the Democrats who have previously shown such poor judgment to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq in order to please their anti-war base? Only time will tell, but future generations of Americans will damn us for our shortsightedness if we allow the politicians to fritter away the coming triumph in Iraq that has been paid for with so much of the blood, sweat, and tears of our soldiers.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
John Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Right Wing News, Linkiest, and Viral Footage.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Surely you're mistaken Mr. Hawkins
Democrat have been for the war all along, and they all massively supported the surge.

Just don't stand on the border between Californicate and Nevada if you believe that one. You might end up in the ocean.

Most of the above quotes
Specifically refer to political and sectarian reconciliation. Obviously, Mr. Hawkins hasn't heard the news that the Presidential council has vetoed the provincial elections law, scuttling any chances the widely trumpted October deadline will be met, and making the prospects of an election before 2009 very dim.

As to sectarianism, it is in fact worse. No longer is it simply Sunni/Shiite. We all saw the fight in Baghdad and Basra. In Anbar the Awakening Councils and the Sunni establishment are firebombing eachother's offices.

And Kirkuk remains become an epicenter for all of the tensions, threatening to destabling Kurdistan and drag and Iran further into the conflict.

Robert
I know you like to pretend that Kirkuk doesn't exists, but as I have been cautioning for months now, it is Elephant in the living room, and it just sneezed.

The purpose of the surge was to facilitate political and sectarian reconciliation. I guess you didn't get the memo either:

The provincial elections are off. And why because of the secartian crisis in Kirkuk.

Article 140 of the Constitution mandated a referendum in Kirkuk by the end of 2007. The deadline was extended to this month. They are now officially off the table with no potential date announced.

The Constitution has been stuck in committee for 3 years due in large part to the lack of resolution of Article 140.

The hydrocarbon law is stalled because of Kirkuk.

Ignore it all you want, but while the surge has brought a drop in violence what it was designed to facilitate has yet to materialize.

Kirkuk is a prime example of that grim reality.


Robert
If the surge had worked Iraq would be holding provincial elections this fall.


Bryce,
In spite of all that you and I disagree on here's one thing tha I hope you'll take my advice about.
STOP REPLYING TO WOBBIE THE WETARD!!

It's pointless because no matter how much more than him you know about ANY sbject, ANYTHING you know about, he KNOWS MORE about it than you, ANYTHING you've done he's done it too, and better than you.

In short, he's just plain better and smarter than all the other Townhall posters combined so stop wasting your time.

Democrats Were Wrong: The surge worked!
This should be Exhibit A in the case against the Democrat's bid to claim the White House. They were uniformly wrong on the surge. Not only that, they cannot be straightforward and admit that it worked. They are not going to make competent decisions about employment of the military. Therefore, they should not be trusted with the critical decisons of a Commander in Chief.

Further, the truth is that we have been reducing troop numbers in Iraq and are continuing to do so. The argument about making a reduction is a big so what: it's being done as we speak. The important point is that it is being done because the surge was a success and it is being done responsibly so that our interest in promoting the democracy in Iraq is preserved.

The bottom line here is that the democrats were caving to political pressure to pull out, and not looking at the best interest of the country. Bush, McCain and the members of Congress who supported the surge were doing so. Because of their leadership, the surge worked, and the democracy in Iraq is preserved, and the threat posed by insurgents and terrorists taking over is effectively addressed.

The number of fatalities of American military in Iraq have dramatically decreased. Every death is a tragedy. However, these numbers are so low that they are probably less than the percentage of deaths in the U.S. We need to keep the leadership in the White House who can be effective in keeping military fatalities low; not put in leadership that will increase it and make bad decisions that do not effectively promote the mission while decreasing fatatlities.

Wobbie - aka ranger29, rancher29, etc.
Wobbie, under any name, is a waste.
His posts are not worth the time to read them.

Wobbie is merely a provocateur.
He is adept at posting anything that provokes a reply,
and more adept at continually moving
the bounds of the discussion to keep people
hooked at trying to explain things to him.

He uses hot button issues to provoke THers
but he has no honesty, principles or integrity.
His object is merely being noticed,
he entices people into addressing him and then,
using his own rules, always "wins" the discussion.

He disappears when ignored.

Two Americas
I see two Americas. We have those who do not accept surrender or defeat or "cut and run" as an option. They seldom see things they cannot do. They are AmeriCANS.
The other side never fails to see defeat at every turn. Appeasement is their military strategy. They can't make a decision to save their life lest it impact a snowy plover.
They are AmeriCANT'S.

Another Reid Statement
It may be worth noting that Reid made another profound statement concerning the surge. He made this statement loudly and proudly. He took to the microphones and porclaimed the surge was a failure. His statement made the national evening news on all channels.

The only problem was that he made this statement before all the troops had been deployed and the surge had actually started.

dims exposed
I wouldn't waste my time commenting about the lib posts. dims don't believe in war, don't believe in protecting the country or believe in the military. That is billions that could support as many illegal invaders (voters) and keep their marxist nuts in power for decades or until the civil war ended. This msm/dim agenda has reached its zenith. We now have the ultimate in snake oil pacifists, smooth talking, Harvard educated, half-black elitist to lead their cause. They would not be satified, especially after Reagan's positives and Carter/Clinton disasters, until they could propagandize Americans into communism. With all the historical and current totalitarian failures and butchery they still think they can provide a better way.

If Americans don't wake up to this common sense article complete with accurate quotes nothing will shake them. We actually have academic and media leaders promoting 9/11 conspiracy and Iraq loss as facts to our children every day. We must sink everyone one of these scum by November or the judicial, financial and social condition of this country is doomed forever. You might think a four year dose of Oblaba will give us Reaganism and '94 all over again but this is a new age. The dim/media and their financiers have staked their ground and are hoping the old Dems/young ignorant/brain-numbed/lemming fools/illegals are going to project them to green /nirvana one world glory. And with the internet and media manipulation we are in a time where they may be right. But I'm a glass half full person that's part of the solution that has learned from history and the dim power of near self-fulfilling, anti-conservative prophecy.

DEFEAT THEM NOW IN EVERY DISTRICT, STATE, COUNTY AND TOWN. DEFEAT THEM UNTIL THE CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS SEE THE ERROR OF THEIR WAYS.

And we can't wait until 2012!

bryce
The surge was to give the Iraqi government the opportunity to get things done in a safe environment. Clearly our troops cannot make the decisions concerning their government, so how can you attribute the surge to how their government got things done? Their government is probably getting more done than out government...does that mean we should get rid of our government? Your argument makes no sense. The surge has given their government a safe environment and now they can do their business. The surge clearly worked.

Ignoring Reality
The mosst important political advance to come out of the surge, the provincial elections, have been cancelled, as has the Kirkuk referendum.

The surge can't be said to have been a success unless and until the political and sectarian resolultion occurs.

And again, instead of just repeating the mantra that the surge has worked, will someone here offer some actual analysis of how the surge can be characterized as a success in the face of the Kirkuk crisis?

bryce
Here:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/07/obama-su rge.html

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/the-success -of.html

There are two articles showing our candidates on how it is working.

I would also like to ask again...how can you connect the dots to the surge not working with actual political gains. If we have given them the opportunity to make the political gains, then the surge worked. How can you argue against that?

bryce:
Look up the words: commiserate and commensurate

Lumberjack
Thank you for the correction.

Ck Hustler
To me your argument is like saying if Ford launches a wonderful new car with the intent of creating a sales opportunity and the public fails to buy it, that the launch was a success.

John Hawkins, Tell It Like It Was

Dear Mr. Hawkins:

Past performance is all we have to go on when attempting to evaluate future prospects, and in 2007 those who doubted the success of the surge based on the dismal past performance of our leaders had a lot more reason to doubt than supporters of the surge had to believe in.

For FOUR YEARS prior to the "surge," John McCain repeatedly argued that the Iraq War was a "terribly mismanaged war," which had incurred some 3,000 military deaths. Considering the fact that the U.S. had the same tunnel-visioned commander-in-chief, George W. Bush, who would be calling the shots for the surge as he did for "the terribly mismanaged war," exactly on what basis did Sen. McCain -- and other surge-supporters base their confidence that the surge would "succeed"?

Where was Pres. Bush hiding Gen. David Petraeus while the situation in Iraq was deteriorating almost daily under the command of Donald Rumfeld, the grossly inept Secretary of Defense whom McCain for four years railed repeatedly against and Pres. Bush staunchly stood by until the end, even as casualty tolls mounted and the U.S. was faced with "the consequenes of faiure"?

Truth be told it was the 2006 congressional elections in which the Democrats gained control of Congress which provided the wake up call for Pres. Bush that resulted in the "new strategy" implemented by Gen. Petraeus.

Repeat: In 2007, after four years of failure in Iraq, those who doubted the success of the surge based on the dismal past performance of our leaders had a lot more reason to doubt than supporters of the surge had to believe in.


bryce
That analogy does not work at all.

Answer me this...is the US making any of the policies? Aren't the people of the Iraqi government making the policies?

Here is a better example.

A pitcher pitches 8 perfect innings and the closer comes in and lets in 3 runs to lose.

The surge is the 8 innings and the closer is the Iraqi government. Our surge has given them the opportunity for success. How can you attribute anything but military successes or military failures to the military? Our military is not the one making the policies over there.

You are taking two separate entities and making them one. The military and the Iraqi government. We can only control one end and our end was a success. Its too bad you are bent on your biased view.

Great article...
It's too bad that facts mean nothing to liberals.

I know the solution
After reading all these comments, I have the perfect solution! Let's round up all the Obama like minded anti-war oh so intelligent democrats and send them all over to Iraq to teach the Iraqi government how to govern themselves so that all our soldiers can come home! Meanwhile, back in America, we can have some peace and relief as we begin to drill our own oil and become independent on foreign resources. With any luck, maybe those dems will love it enough over there they won't come back!

the dems were wrong, but...
The dems were wrong about the surge, but it is not completely fair to beat them with that stick.

Bush's team had so badly botched the post invasion management of Iraq, and the communication campaign in the US, a rational and intelligent person could come to the conclusion that surge would fail.

During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq I thought it was a risky, but bold move to change the game in the middle-east (and put every tin pot dictator on notice that there are limits to what they can get away with). At that time I was hopeful for success.

Immediately after the invasion, when the administration sent the 4th ID home instead of continuing on to Iraq as early signs of chaos were apparent... and we set up an occupation govt as things spiraled out of control, my faith in Bush's team collapsed.

I do not think we have been successful in Iraq because of the smart things we have done. We have been successful because of the incredibly stupid things al Quida and Iran did by savaging the local population. We are winning because of stubbornness… not because of the strategy and brilliance of our leaders. Our leaders incompetence has cost us thousands of men’s lives and billion and billons of dollars.

I thought the surge was likely to fail. I supported it only as an act of wishful desperation. I am glad it succeeded.

The numbers
Since the surge was fully implemented in September 2007, military deaths have declined significantly.

Starting in October '07, the average daily number of deaths has not exceeded 2, while in the 12 months prior to the surge it was well over 2 deaths per day.

And let's not forget that the surge was accompanied by a change in strategy to clear and hold areas vs. just clearing along with changes in political efforts.

http://icasualties.org/oif/

Ck Hustler
Interestingly, in your analogy the other team wins.

My point remains. The generals have stressed repeatedly that without commensurate...thank you lumberjack...political and sectarin gains, military gains are for naught. The claims that the surge has worked are seriously undermined by the fact that the provincial elections, characterized by the administration as crucial to future stability, have been canceled.

As to sectarianism, it is further entrenched than before the surge began. Witness Kirkuk.

bryce
I realized my example could work much further.

Without our 8 inning success, the closer couldn't even come in for the chance to complete the win. Same works with our surge. If our surge had not worked, the Iraqi government wouldn't even have the chance to move forward.

If the closer wins the game, the starter gets a win and the closer gets a save. If the closer loses, then the starter does not get a loss, which is what you are doing here. Our military has brought them to the gates of victory and it is the job of the Iraqi government to complete their quest.

Could our starter have finished the game instead of bringing in the closer and get himself a complete game win? Sure, we could run everything, but then Iraq is not its own sovereign nation anymore. We are instilling the power back to their people in the form of freedom. They are not becoming a 51st state, but are becoming foreign allies.

I still don't understand why you are making two separate working parts of this and making it one.

nmi pt.1
You ask,"Considering the fact that the U.S. had the same tunnel-visioned commander-in-chief, George W. Bush, who would be calling the shots for the surge as he did for "the terribly mismanaged war," exactly on what basis did Sen. McCain -- and other surge-supporters base their confidence that the surge would "succeed"?"

I say that McCain and the others calling for a change in strategy had talked to the people on the ground and come to the conclusion that if the President adopted a new strategy it would succeed. You seem to be locked so far into your BDS that you cannot understand the difference between a change in strategy and tactics; the shift to the surge was not a tactic, but a whole new approach to waging the war. And GWB's adoption of the new strategy was an admission that his past strategy had not been the correct one, so he made the necessary changes to achieve greater success.


nmi pt.2
Also, the Democrats did not base their opposition to the surge on any deep mistrust of the President, so much as they did on trying to make use of the situation in the context of domestic politics. You had members of the Congress who had clamored for a new strategy, many of them who had argued for just this type of increase in troop levels, suddenly declaring that the surge was a failure...before it could even be tried. Those Democrats were more interested in playing to their political base and discrediting Bush than listening to anything the commanders on the ground had to say; just note Sen. Clinton's words to Gen. Petraeus. She basically accused the man of selling the Congress a lie that would require a "willing suspension of disbelief"; where has been her apology to him, or her acknowledgment that she was wrong?

Finally, even if as you say, "...those who doubted the success of the surge based on the dismal past performance of our leaders had a lot more reason to doubt than supporters of the surge had to believe in", why do they to this day refuse to admit that their politically based opposition to the surge, and their somber pronouncements of failure at the outset (and in some cases before)of the strategy has been proven wrong?

bryce
"The generals have stressed repeatedly that without commensurate...thank you lumberjack...political and sectarin gains, military gains are for naught. "

I am not disputing that point. In my first example, the other teams wins due to the closer, not the starter. If the Iraqi government cannot do anything then there is no way to end this war with them in a democracy, but do you really believe that they will continue to do nothing? Do you think they don't want freedom and a representative government?

In reality, the 9th inning has not been played yet. Our starter has given us 8 innings of spectacular pitching and the 9th inning is about to start. We have given them the opportunity and it is now their turn.

I second Barbara's motion!
Send the Democrats to Iraq, and it will get them out of their ivory tower. Better yet, it will get them out of the United States!

Many liberals vowed to leave the country four years ago, anyway, so why shouldn't we help them keep their promise?

Ck Hustler
It's not just me making this connection. In every testimony Crocker and Petreaus have stressed that stability cannot be achieved with security gains alone. You can't seperate the two.

bryce
The total of the two will give the success of their freedom, however the success of the surge is only part of that and the surge worked.

CK on the Iraqi gov't
I have little positive to say about them. Al-Maliki and Al-Hakim are Iranian inventions intentent on creating a mini theocracy in the south.

Honestly I see little good coming out of this whole endeavor.

bryce
Only time will tell. We have set them up to be a success, but we will see. I hope they will come alive politically and take control of their country.

John Hawkins, Tell It Like It Was

Mr. Hawkins, past performance is all we have to go on when attempting to evaluate future prospects, and in 2007 those who doubted the success of the surge based on the dismal past performance of our leaders had a lot more reason to doubt than supporters of the surge had to believe in.

For FOUR YEARS prior to the "surge," John McCain repeatedly argued that the Iraq War was a "terribly mismanaged war," which had incurred some 3,000 military deaths. Considering the fact that the U.S. had the same tunnel-visioned commander-in-chief, George W. Bush, who would be calling the shots for the surge as he did for "the terribly mismanaged war," exactly on what basis did Sen. McCain -- and other surge-supporters base their confidence that the surge would "succeed"?

Where was Pres. Bush hiding Gen. David Petraeus while the situation in Iraq was deteriorating almost daily under the command of Donald Rumfeld, the grossly inept Secretary of Defense whom McCain for four years railed repeatedly against and Pres. Bush staunchly stood by until the end, even as casualty tolls mounted and the U.S. was faced with "the consequenes of faiure"?

Truth be told it was the 2006 congressional elections in which the Democrats gained control of Congress which provided the wake up call for Pres. Bush that resulted in the "new strategy" implemented by Gen. Petraeus.

Repeat: In 2007, after four years of failure in Iraq, those who doubted the success of the surge based on the dismal past performance of our leaders had a lot more reason to doubt than supporters of the surge had to believe in.


Back to the Future

After Bush and Rumsfield lead US Military forces to the MOST sucessfull military victory over Iraq back in 2003, what was the ONE thing that Bush and Rumsfield had NO CONTROL over?

The MSM in the USA. Just like with Vietnam, the MSM in the USA begin a CONSTANT negative drip, drip campaign to demoralize the US Citizens and highlight every SINGLE death of US Soliders. IF the US MSM had highlighted every positive story and showed NIGHT after NIGHT heartwarming stories of Iraq's who no longer lived in fear of Saddam, the terrorists in Iraq would have become demoralized in less than 1 year and there would have been NO need for a SURGE of troops.

I hold the US MSM responsible for the deaths of over 2000 US Soldiers because of their giving aid and comfort to the terrorists in Iraq.

Bush's number one failure in Iraq was his failure to communicate this fact to the US Citizens every day. If Bush had gone after Democrats like Murtha and Kerry and a couple of Journalists for their lies about our troops in Iraq and charged them with treason for giving aid and comfort to the terrorists, he could have stayed on the PR offense against the MSM.

Instead Bush underestimated the MSM's ability to demoralize the US's willingness to fight.

NO President will EVER win ANY war against Radical Islam if the MSM is allowed to demoralize the US Citizens.

nmi
Do you have a point? The surge worked and democrats are trying to act like they were right all along. Obama, with his 16 month timetable, was given over 16 months ago meaning, he was 100% wrong.

And instead of reposting a horrible post, you should consider trying to back your previous one after someone responds.

nmi
as though the point needed repeating -you once again prove that lenghty diatribes are just elitist attepts to sound smerter than the reader.
Thank you for making the point one more boring time -ughhh!

To be fair
The other concern is why does the Media badger Obama with questions like "Do you recognize that progress made by the troop surge (less violence, 15/18 goals met, etc)?"

That's fine, but why doesn't McCain get asked "Do you recognize the mistakes, and tremendous costs of this war? (2-3 million Iraqi casualties, 4.5 million Iraqi refugees, 900 billion taxpayer dollars towards the war)."

That's the question, why does is the democrat forced to acknowledge progress while the republicans refuse to admit the costs?

bryce
Why don't you just give it up?
Hustler has gotten the best of you at EVERY post, especially with his great pitching analogy that blew your inept Ford analogy right out of the water.
You are trying to prove that the apples are rotten by saying the oranges taste bad.
Trying to cling to your feeble argument in the face of an overwhelming defeat is really embarrassing.
Don't you think?

Brett
Just curious... what have you done to contribute to the war in Iraq?

Mr. Hawkins
Pointing out that Liberal Democrats are Anti-Military Cowards is like pointing out that Frenchmen STINK! I you are around them for a short period of time, it is OBVIOUS!

The surge failure


The purpose of the surge is a failure. End of story. Time to get out and fight our enemies sensibly.

Truth is our friend
When it comes to Iraq, the surge is a great success, right? Well, according to Ayad Allawi, Iraq's former prime minister, that depends on what you mean by "success".

Allawi rattled off a laundry list of perils that still confront the Iraqi people: internal displacement of large numbers of people, millions of refugees outside Iraq, security forces he described as sectarian militias dressed in national uniforms, no enforcement of the national constitution, which he described as a "divisive" document.

The Surge in Iraq
There are some cynics out here who might say that a political entity with 14% approval rating and 10% confidence rating does not have the standing to evaluate the political progress of an other country.

Frankly, I thought that "Creampuff Katie" Couric did a good job of kicking Obama in the nuts the other day. I believe that was the point where some people started LISTENING to what Obama had to say, instead of just WATCHING what was happening.

And when Obama speaks "off the cuff", he is NOT very impressive.

Stop arguing with bryce
Like every other lib he will simply move the goal posts so he can say Bush and America failed. When we said Saddam had to go they said we would lose 50K troops and it would be a disaster so we should just leave the UN in charge (the same UN that was allowing Saddam to circumvent the very sanctions they where supposedly enforcing). It wasn't anything close. When we had not captured Saddam immediately they told us we had lost. Once Saddam was caught, the song changed again. When the WH, constantly second guessed by America haters that wanted the US to lose and where ready to pounce on anything that would allow them to paint America negatively, instead of establishing order chose to pursue democracy and caused chaos, we where told we lost. Suddenly we where told Iraq was in a civil war and that the game was over. "Cut and run" or else. So then the WH changed their plans and we got the surge to address the chaos. Before it even happened we where told it was too little, too late, and that we had already lost. So then the surge works and we pacify most of the violence, and now we are told that because of something else we have lost. There is a pattern here people. If you can recognize it you can basically see it is a waste of time to argue with these idiots. The only time America will be allowed to win is when a democrat will get the credit. Bush must be remembered as a failure as a payback for Clinton.

Joe
I want some stats. I have not seen estimates that high and I have seen many estimates. If you are going to use a high one, well I can use a low one.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

That has it under 100k.

And McCain does get asked those questions, the difference is McCain believes in something solid so his answers are already known, while Obama believes what the asker believes so he has to decipher what the other person wants to hear. Always makes for interesting answers I think.

And yet Alex
Like the rest there is no comment from you on how the crisis in Kirkuk figures in the claims that the surge has worked.

Bottom line
If the surge had worked, Iraq would be holding provincial elections this fall as planned.

CK
One it depends on which study since there's a variety, and two it depends on the method and how they define "Deaths caused by the war."

Opinion Research Corp estimated 1.2 million.

Lancet 600,000 back in 2006.

WHO estimates 150,000.

Obviously not all of these deaths were at the hand of US troops, that much is clear.

Casualties are important to note, and those range anywhere from 200,000 all the way up to 2-3 million.

Some have also estimated that the prison population of Iraq is about 2 million. A prison rate of like 8%.

+4-4.5 million refugees. Jordan and Egypt just closed their borders to refugees, and are kicking them out. I'd like to know what Obama, or McCain plan to do when they all return IF they return.

Near 20-30% of the population of Iraq has been whisked away.

Obama says 16 months, he's living in a fantasy land, not even 4 or 8 years. Forget it. We're in Iraq for at least 30 more years.

Hey bryce
So you are basically trying to make the argument that unless it works "perfectly" it is a failure and people like you that want to "cut & run", the consequences be damned, got it right? No room for progress in increments? Mind if I apply that logic to everything the left holds dear? War on poverty? Something over $12 trillion (conservatively at the low end of the numbers) wasted the last 4+ decades. Can we basically do away with every socialist program? What about Healthcare? Are you going to abandon the left's cry to give government control of 1/6th of our economy since we know how socialized medicine creates a lot more problems than it solves? Can we just get rid of the legal system? After all it is not infallible and the darn thing never seems to win. I can go on.

The point is bryce that nobody cares to address the next criteria your side decides need to be met before we can say we won, because as soon as we meet it, you will have something else you will claim is not done so you can continue to make the same ridiculous demands that we surrender. As soon as the issues in Kirkuk are addressed you will find something else to claim why we have lost in Iraq. Once it is obvious we can not lose in Iraq you will claim Iraq is lost because we have not won in Afghanistan. Oh wait. This has already been done. In fact the MSM is moving precisely to this strategy now that they have egg on their face over Iraq. Yeah we should "cut & run" in Iraq (while there is still time to leave enough of a mess that we can later say Bush did wrong) to go fight in Afghanistan! Thanks for playing.

Casualties..
I find it quite funny that leftists so obsess over numbers of people you want to claim your country killed, even when the numbers are bold lies and always inflating those numbers so you can accuse your own of genocide, but never seem to think about the fact that the ideology they want to push on us killed hundreds of million and enslaved and continues to enslave billions on this planet just in the last century. I wonder why huh?

Alex

"Obviously not all of these deaths were at the hand of US troops, that much is clear."

I guess you didn't see that part.

Okay...the surge worked...
even most Dems are saying that now...directly contradicting the above-cited quotes. Given that violence is down and Iraq is getting back to business as usual with our help, how is it that Obama cannot even say it is the efforts of our troops that have created this decrease in violence? How can he say, given what he knows now, that he would still not have supported the surge? Since it is obvious he is not stupid, one can only assume he is bullheaded to the point of being unable to admit he may have been wrong. That, my friends, is pride. When his pride gets in the way of national interests, that is the recipe for a disaster, especially since he is running for the highest office in the land.

Joe
Which study showed 2-3 million. I haven't seen any that high.

Joe
The absolute highest I have seen is roughly 1.2 million. Most that I see are below 500,000 and a good portion of those are under 200,000. So Im not sure where you are getting these extremely high numbers from.

Joe
The 600 000 deaths figure published by The Lancet was basedon a study secretly funded by George Soros. The editor of The Lancet has stated that he would not have published their findings had he known that they were funded by a political operative, as it places the validity of the study in question.

Bring our troops home NOW!!!
If they stay in Iraq much longer they just might win the war!

When considering casualties
One must note that many human rights organizations were telling us that "the sanctions" were killing over 100 000 Iraqis every year. Saddam himself was killing and torturing thousands of others, with no end to his regime in sight.

So, by any measure, the war has resulted in a lower net casualties than before.

I suppose we could have just ended the sanctions, allowing Saddam free reign to but stuff like chlorine and ammonia, and just trusted that he would not weaponize it. And I'm sure he would have trusted the IAEA to deal with the growing nuclear threat in Iran without restarting his own nuclear program. (note the sarcasm)

nmi,
nmi Location: NJ

Tenor comments:

It would be interesting to know what “nmi” stands for. It could be thought to mean “Not Much Intelligence.” I will assume that is not the case.

You write:

1) Where was Pres. Bush hiding Gen. David Petraeus while the situation in Iraq was deteriorating almost daily?

2) Truth be told it was the 2006 congressional elections in which the Democrats gained control of Congress which provided the wake up call for Pres. Bush that resulted in the "new strategy" implemented by Gen. Petraeus.

Tenore replies:

As to the first question: Where was Pres. Bush hiding Gen. Petraeus?

Pres. Bush did not want the democrats to lose the 2006 election, so he kept the General in his back pocket.

Honestly, that is a dumb question; therefore we find a good reason for the initials “nmi.”

As to the second question:

Of course when the demos won control of congress; Pres. Bush decided he had better start obeying. There are, after all, only two equal branches of government, the congress and the Supreme Court.

I’m always amused that congress can hold hearing and force the president to let his people be savaged by the likes of Hillary, Nancy, Dumbin and the best of all, Wax-beard-man. Why can’t the President hold hearings also?

Just a question!

wrong, wrong, wrong
The surge overshadowed the real cause for the drop in violence....the ceasefire. If it weren't for the ceasefire the surge would have failed.

YouTube Video
Someone needs to put together a video of all of these comments and put it on youtube. Did I miss the quote from Harry Reid? THE WAR IS LOST!

Democratic congress
There are two basic kinds of people in life that carry over into the political arena: the can's and the cant's! The Democratic congress is filled with the cant's who are not willing to admit when they are are proved wrong. Just look at their balking on drilling when it is so urgently needed to get us off the dole from our enemies! If Clinton had not vetoed the drilling bill back in 1995, we would be doing what American's do best--relying on our own resourses and ingenuity and stop begging someone else to bail us out.

Well
It is a little difficult to argue that troops should "stay until victory" and to chastize Obama for saying it's time to go home when the Counterfeit Cowboy himself has agreed in principle to a timetable for withdrawal.

Moving the goalposts?
The administration has heralded the holding of provincial as crucial to any longterm improvements in Iraq. Due to the Kirkuk crisis they are now off.

How does that figure into the assertions of success?

Robert
That was a response to an earlier post from someone about me personally. I for one have made the same argument about the central issue being sectarianism since before the surge.

Again I ask you, how does the Kirkuk crisis, crucial enough to have scuttled the provincial elections, figure into you notions about the success of the surge?

Larky says
If Clinton had not vetoed the drilling bill back in 1995, we would be doing what American's do best--relying on our own resourses and ingenuity and stop begging someone else to bail us out.

Didn't the original George Bush ban all off shore drilling? Both political parties are at fault for our oil problems.

Did anybody notice?
Dingy Harry and Nancy "Stretch Face" Pelosi ran to the cameras less than 48 hours into the surge to proclaim it a failure and once again trumpet that "the war is lost!". They can not WAIT to wave the white flag and run! This is the only way they can turn Iraq into Vietnam and they know it.

They came up in the Vietnam Era and have the old sick liberal worldview that the U.S. and its military are the focus of evil in the modern world and will do ANYTHING to make that demented vision come true.

READ General Giap's autobiography for God's sake!!! He was the former history professor who became North Vietnam's Gen. Washington. He never won more than a few small battles but won the war HERE at home and in the sick twisted media.

Tet was a disaster for the North. Our army wiped out an entire generation of North Vietnamese in days. But the cameras were there and ALL they showed were stacked body bags and crowded aid stations.

Giap ADMITS in his book that he was telling the North to surrender that they had no hope and then they showed him the unrest on the campuses caused by overpampered white bread college twerps. He saw the LIES of the "Winter Soldier" hearings (Jean Francois Kerry ring a bell?) and they hardened their resolve. We HAD them on the ropes and the media and politicians snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

-Ray
NRA Life Member

So?
So they've lost interest in killing Americans, and?

All this proves is that the Jihadists are tired of killing Americans at the cost of their own lives.

Meaning they never had any intention of taking the country over, only to kill as many Christians as possible.

And as such, having pulled our troops out of there earlier would have been the best course of action.

That in combination with politician NOT having turned it into a holy-war in the first place.

So, in summation:

The victory was had years ago, when Saddam was removed from power.

This is merely the end of a pointless ego- and religion-driven show of force, which cost thousands of Americans and Iraqis their lives.

In laymen terms, the pious protestants' pissing contest cost lives, and did nothing.

/start sarcasm

YAY! death and the forestall of progress for nothing, GO PIOUS RELIGIOUS EXTREMISTS!!!

/end sarcasm
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.