60 Minutes reality check on Bush/McCain surge

For all the cheering about how the "surge" worked, they are forgetting details. Yes, violence is down but considering how bad it was, it has just gone from hell to hellish. If you read ICasualties.org for the news from Iraq and Afghanistan, you'll see what I mean. These are the numbers since the "surge" of Iraq.
2007
Jan. 83
Feb. 81
March 81
April 104
May 126
June 101
July 80
Aug.84
Sept. 66
Oct. 38
Nov. 37
Dec. 23 and it was the highest death count year since 2003

This year, well the numbers went up and down and none of them include the deaths of the suicides once they came back home.

2008
Jan. 40
Feb. 29
March 39
April 52
May 19
June 29
July 13
Aug. 23
so far for Sept. 4
http://icasualties.org/oif/


Bombs still blow up the soldiers and the civilians. The government is still a mess and there are still police on the take, Iraqi soldiers still infiltrate the units and still seek revenge. The troops, well, they are still waiting for the Washington politicians to get their act in gear and finish this off. It's not happening. With 2,000 Georgian forces pulled out near the Iranian border it only added to the problem of before when the UK forces dwindled down along with the other nations who have pulled out their forces, this "surge" was nothing more than a replacement for boots from other nations. This is not even touching what's going on in Afghanistan. The sooner Iraq is controlled the better and the troops can pull out of there, but if McCain keeps selling his "the surge worked" and talking heads keep refusing to use their brains and pay attention, the great the chance of the troops staying in Iraq forever.

After reading the following you may finally understand that this is not what the generals wanted but only what Bush/McCain wanted. Most of what clamed things down was al-Sadr calling off his army and commanders on the ground using their brains paying off the militia killing the troops to get them to stop. al-Maliki however does not want to continue the practice and says he has no plans of putting them on his every growing payroll.

Woodward: Military Brass Opposed Surge
Also Tells 60 Minutes U.S. Has Secret Military Capability; And That U.S. Has Been Spying On Iraq's PM
Comments 163 Page 1 of 4
Sept. 7, 2008


(CBS) A year and a half since the surge in Iraq, violence is the lowest it has been since the invasion. The idea of throwing another 30,000 troops into Iraq was a desperate gamble in a dark time. And only now are we finding out just how much opposition there was by the nation's top military leaders. That's among the revelations in a new book by Washington Post Associate Editor Bob Woodward.

"The War Within" is Woodward's fourth insider account from the Bush White House.

60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley sat down with Woodward for his first interview in advance of the book's release and asked him about the war within the administration after the surge was proposed by civilians in the White House.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Asked what the generals at the Pentagon thought when presented with the idea of a surge, Woodward told Pelley, "They think that it won't work. And the president actually at one point goes and meets with them. And the Army chief of staff, General [Peter] Schoomaker, says 'You can't add five brigades, it will take many more,' 'What about another crisis?' 'We don't have troops for this,' 'What about the damage your doing to the force, the young kids who see nothing but endless rotations?'"

"What does General Casey, sitting in Baghdad, think of having additional troops?" Pelley asked.

"He thinks that Baghdad is a troop sump-a place you can put endless numbers of troops in. And he does not want to add force," Woodward said.

"The president, who has said in public, endless times, that he relies on his generals to tell him what they need, is actually going his own way here," Pelley remarked.

"That's right," Woodward agreed. "The records of the joint chiefs show that the idea of five brigades came from the White House, not from anybody except the White House."
go here for more
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/04/60minutes/main4415771.shtml

Iraqi surge exceeded expectations, Obama says. but,,,,

Iraqi surge exceeded expectations, Obama says
While violence is down, he says strategy hasn't led to political reconciliation

LANCASTER, Pa. - Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said Thursday that the escalation of U.S. troops in Iraq, which he had opposed, has succeeded in reducing violence "beyond our wildest dreams."

But Iraq still has failed to achieve the political reconciliation and self-sufficiency that is required, he said, and he vowed to withdraw American troops and end the war.

Earlier Thursday, in taping a segment for Fox's "O'Reilly Factor," Obama said the surge of U.S. troops has "succeeded beyond our wildest dreams."
go here for more
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26550764/

Who are you really supporting? The Troops or Bush?

This has been bothering me for a long time. While I read what the pro-war bloggers seem to find oh so important to spread all over the net, there is very little they do post about the troops, other than what they believe will "support" Bush. While I do see their point that good news does not get reported on the nightly news, apparently they didn't notice the bad news does not get reported either.

Consider this from the GAO

GAO Report Faults Post-'Surge' Planning
Lack of Comprehensive Strategy Cited, but Pentagon Study Sees Gains in Iraq

By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 24, 2008; A14



The administration lacks an updated and comprehensive Iraq strategy to move beyond the "surge" of combat troops President Bush launched in January 2007 as an 18-month effort to curtail violence and build Iraqi democracy, government investigators said yesterday.

While agreeing with the administration that violence has decreased sharply, a report released yesterday by the Government Accountability Office concluded that many other goals Bush outlined a year and a half ago in the "New Way Forward" strategy remain unmet.

The report, after a bleak GAO assessment last summer, cited little improvement in the ability of the Iraqi security forces to act independently of the U.S. military, and noted that key legislation passed by the Iraqi parliament had not been implemented while other crucial laws had not been passed. The report also judged that key Iraqi ministries spent less of their allocated budgets last year than in previous years, and said that oil and electricity production had repeatedly not met U.S. targets.
go here for more
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/23/AR2008062302050_pf.html

Since the surge, we've heard the surge is working even while the death count of US forces reached an all time yearly high. In April when the death count of US forces increased to over 50, not one word was said yet as soon as the death count dropped, it was all over the pro-war blog sites. Had they really supported the troops they would post the bad with the good because both parts of events in Iraq involve them.

When they come home wounded and not taken care of properly, they are again ignored by the pro-war bloggers. The media was attacked for reporting on the bad conditions. All in all, when they claim to be supporting the troops, they are really supporting Bush and don't care how he treats them. Wounds not taken care of are no problem to them. Backlogged claims, no problem. Food stamps and unemployment lines and homelessness, no problem for the pro-war bloggers. Very, very sad. I'd like to say at least they are paying attention to the troops, Iraq and Afghanistan, but they aren't. If they were, they would post whatever news they could find since very little is coming out on either occupation.

Report: Iraq goals no closer than a year ago

Report: Iraq goals no closer than a year ago

By Bradley Brooks - The Associated Press
Posted : Sunday Apr 6, 2008 17:21:39 EDT

BAGHDAD — The United States is no closer to achieving its goals in Iraq than it was a year ago but a quick military withdrawal could lead to massive chaos and even genocide, according to a report released Sunday by a U.S. think tank.

The U.S. Institute of Peace report was written by experts who advised the Iraq Study Group, a panel mandated by Congress to offer recommendations on U.S. policy in Iraq in 2006.

The report was released two days before top commander Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker brief Congress on the situation in Iraq and prospects for American troop reductions. Their recommendations, which President Bush has signaled he will accept, could largely determine the course of action in Iraq for the coming year.

The report cited security improvements in Iraq since the buildup of U.S. forces in 2007, but credited factors outside U.S. control, such as help from mostly Sunni fighters who turned against al-Qaida and a truce by a Shiite militia.
“The U.S. is no closer to being able to leave Iraq than it was a year ago,” it concluded. “Lasting political development could take five to 10 years of full, unconditional U.S. commitment to Iraq.”
go here for more
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/04/ap_iraqgoals_040608/

This is Vietnam all over again and we all need to ask what the point is in doing this any longer. There seems to be no point at all. We just keep getting soldiers killed and wounded and making the rest suffer.