Violence is Down in Iraq?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
41

Dems are working overtime to discredit the Petraeus report before it is given. Witness Bradley/100 treading water in this thread.

Most interesting quote is from Durbin:

“Even if the figures were right, the conclusion is wrong.”

Get that. No matter what the report says, if it disagrees with what Durbin and the surrender coalitions says the conclusion is wrong.

Priceless.

Democrats Already Discrediting Upcoming Petraeus Report
Senators Suggest They Don’t Expect Any New Information, Just White House Spin
By MATTHEW JAFFE
Sept. 8, 2007 �??

When Gen. David Petraeus comes to Capitol Hill early this week to testify before Congress on the progress of President Bush’s troop surge in Iraq, he can expect to be confronted by senators who have already started speaking out.

Democratic leaders are not waiting to hear the general’s testimony Monday before the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committee.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in his party’s weekly radio address today that he expects the Petraeus report to be nothing more than the Bush administration’s selective take on the surge.

“Before the report arrives in Congress, it will pass through the White House spin machine, where facts are often ignored or twisted, and intelligence is cherry-picked,” said Reid.

On Friday, Reid went so far as to question not only the true source of the report but also the four-star general’s honesty.

“He has made a number of statements over the years that have not proven to be factual,” Reid said. “I have every belief that this good man will give us what he feels is the right thing to do in his report, but it’s not his report anymore. It’s Bush’s report.”

Reid’s criticisms have been echoed by his fellow Democratic leaders in Congress.

In a speech Friday at the Center for National Policy, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said, “President Bush is preparing to tell the nation, once again, that his strategy in Iraq is succeeding. We know what the Bush-Petraeus report will say: The surge is working. Be patient. The reality is despite heroic efforts by U.S. troops, the Bush surge is not working.”

Durbin, the majority whip, suggested the White House is twisting the facts to reach its desired conclusion.

“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,” he said. “Even if the figures were right, the conclusion is wrong.”

Published reports in recent days suggested that Petraeus may be prepared to agree to the withdrawal of one brigade – approximately 3,500 to 4,000 troops – in early 2008. Democrats wasted little time in saying that such a proposal was simply not enough to appease some of their expectations for withdrawal.

On Friday, Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pa., called such an idea “an attempt to throw Congress a bone and begin to pull some troops out,” adding, “I was hoping he’d be much more bold and far-reaching than that.”

Petraeus has denied that such reports are accurate.

Across the Hill in the House of Representatives, Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., joined his Senate colleagues in claiming the Petraeus report would be little more than a work of fiction.

“Instead of a new strategy for Iraq, the Bush administration is cherry-picking the data to support their political objectives and preparing a report that will offer another defense of the president’s strategy,” said Emanuel, the House Democratic Caucus Chair. “We don’t need a report that wins the Nobel Prize for creative statistics or the Pulitzer for fiction.”

ABC News

42

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
So there were how many goals again? And we should forget about anything showing progress - particularly, the military progress and the operations against al Queda in Iraq (not the mention the disintegration of the former Baathist Sunni insurgency) - and simply focus on the political situation? I would think that a lot of folks would disagree.

And progress is definitely being made:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/06/america/military.php

The Dems set up an independent panel to dilute the impact of the Petraeus Report. Then when it reports something that doesn’t fit the anti-war talking points, they express “immediate skepticism.”

With regard to casualties, it was predicted that casualties would rise with the surge. Yet they’ve declined since the surge went into full force – something noted by McClatchy, actually:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003636490

We should try listening to Petraeus today – something that’s not being done by the members of Congress intent on speaking and pontificating during his testimony…

The GAO report was focused on assessing particular areas ofthe Iraqi government’s progress (note limitations described here: http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWIzYzRkMzc5N2IzMGJlZjRjZWVlMTQxNGFiYWNjNmE= ). Petraeus’ report will be focused on the military progress.

There’s no question that there is work to be done – but the surge is working in attaining the military goals. And Petraeus is precisely the right man to run a winning counter-insurgency program.[/quote]

Good lord, a intelligent response…Oh it’s BB, not Hedo(any wingnut)

43

[quote]100meters wrote:
…

Good lord, a intelligent response…Oh it’s BB, not Hedo(any wingnut)
[/quote]

Yes, BB is far more patient than most others when dealing with an irrational person.

44

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Yes, BB is far more patient than most others when dealing with an irrational person. [/quote]

For one thing, BB knows that calling someone “irrational” can only poison the debate.

45

100 you calling anyone stupid is really comical. Moonbats aren’t supposed to be funny although I guess you don’t realize it.
Intelligence and communication skills are not virtues which you possess.

The good General cut the legs out from under you and the Kos kids today. Tomorrow, no doubt, Hillary and the rest of the surrender coalition will come out in favor of the war.

Let the spin begin.

46

[quote]100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
So there were how many goals again? And we should forget about anything showing progress - particularly, the military progress and the operations against al Queda in Iraq (not the mention the disintegration of the former Baathist Sunni insurgency) - and simply focus on the political situation? I would think that a lot of folks would disagree.

And progress is definitely being made:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/06/america/military.php

The Dems set up an independent panel to dilute the impact of the Petraeus Report. Then when it reports something that doesn’t fit the anti-war talking points, they express “immediate skepticism.”

With regard to casualties, it was predicted that casualties would rise with the surge. Yet they’ve declined since the surge went into full force – something noted by McClatchy, actually:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003636490

We should try listening to Petraeus today – something that’s not being done by the members of Congress intent on speaking and pontificating during his testimony…

The GAO report was focused on assessing particular areas ofthe Iraqi government’s progress (note limitations described here: http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWIzYzRkMzc5N2IzMGJlZjRjZWVlMTQxNGFiYWNjNmE= ). Petraeus’ report will be focused on the military progress.

There’s no question that there is work to be done – but the surge is working in attaining the military goals. And Petraeus is precisely the right man to run a winning counter-insurgency program.

Good lord, a intelligent response…Oh it’s BB, not Hedo(any wingnut)
[/quote]

Yes and you still haven’t been able to state an opinion beyond babble.

47

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Yes, BB is far more patient than most others when dealing with an irrational person.

For one thing, BB knows that calling someone “irrational” can only poison the debate. [/quote]

Once you try to debate someone rationally a number of times and they continue with the poison you learn not to bother.

Hell, even you are more rational than some of the other posters here. At least you have an agenda that you think is in the best interests of your people.

Some of these clowns spew hate with no regard for anything else.

48

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
So there were how many goals again? And we should forget about anything showing progress - particularly, the military progress and the operations against al Queda in Iraq (not the mention the disintegration of the former Baathist Sunni insurgency) - and simply focus on the political situation? I would think that a lot of folks would disagree.

And progress is definitely being made:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/06/america/military.php
[/quote]
yes progress according to this one report but contradicted here by the others(mentioned even in the article, no?)

Yes, down from earlier this year, but as you know the issue with this is EVERY year this happens (the intensity in attacks is cyclical) and comparing year to year would be the actual helpful comparison, and obviously that number has actually risen—
real success would mean keeping deaths down when they “should be” rising, but that’s just my opinion…

[quote]
We should try listening to Petraeus today – something that’s not being done by the members of Congress intent on speaking and pontificating during his testimony…

The GAO report was focused on assessing particular areas ofthe Iraqi government’s progress (note limitations described here: http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWIzYzRkMzc5N2IzMGJlZjRjZWVlMTQxNGFiYWNjNmE= ). Petraeus’ report will be focused on the military progress.
There’s no question that there is work to be done – but the surge is working in attaining the military goals. And Petraeus is precisely the right man to run a winning counter-insurgency program.[/quote]

49

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Some of these clowns spew hate with no regard for anything else. [/quote]

And you support to make my case…

The point was that even though many around here disagree with some of BB’s viewpoints, he never stoops to the personal level, name calling, and other destructive things. He assumes good faith and argues with reason rather than emotions.

Contrast with hedo or yourself calling me a “cyber-Jihadist”, or JeffR portraying a withdrawal from Iraq as a “defeat” and constantly speaking about “honor” and other gimmicks.

Respect is something you earn by behaving respectfully, not by shouting the loudest or coming up with the funniest insult. At the end of the day, we are very unlikely to switch positions on the major issues, but we could at least try to teach each other new things in the hope that it helps us perceive new shades of gray.

In short, don’t call people “clowns”, and if you must, try to do it in your trademark witty posts (which I personally miss btw).

50

[quote]lixy wrote:
…
Respect is something you earn by behaving respectfully, not by shouting the loudest or coming up with the funniest insult…[/quote]

Agreed. After a few years in the political forums there are a few people in here that I have lost all respect for. They give no respect so they get none in return.

I have traded barbs as well as had good conversations with a number of people with which I often politically disagree but I still respect. Unfortunately they rarely post anymore.

51

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
…
In short, don’t call people “clowns”, and if you must, try to do it in your trademark witty posts (which I personally miss btw).[/quote]

Spend some time in some other forums. It is easier to be witty when some neonazi isn’t blaming the jews for every evil in the world or some partisan hack spews bile without discussing the issues.

52

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
So there were how many goals again? And we should forget about anything showing progress - particularly, the military progress and the operations against al Queda in Iraq (not the mention the disintegration of the former Baathist Sunni insurgency) - and simply focus on the political situation? I would think that a lot of folks would disagree.

And progress is definitely being made:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/06/america/military.php

100meters wrote:
yes progress according to this one report but contradicted here by the others(mentioned even in the article, no?)[/quote]

I don’t think there is much debate about whether there has been military progress. Or that there hasn’t been enough political progress. The reports today further corroborated idea of military progress.

I’m lifting this very good summary from an article at Reason ( Be Angry—but Patient ):

[i]People who knew better than to listen to partisans paid more attention to a raft of August progress reports: a partially declassified National Intelligence Estimate; a leaked draft report [PDF] from the Government Accountability Office; early accounts of a congressionally commissioned study of Iraqi security forces; and reports from members of Congress and think-tank experts who traveled to Iraq.

The assessments disagreed on some details, such as how much Iraq’s security forces are improving, if at all. Taken together, however, they painted a coherent picture, which Petraeus’s report seemed unlikely to change.

* Tactically, which is to say militarily, the troop surge is making headway. Partly thanks to Sunni tribes joining with U.S. forces against Al Qaeda, and partly because the Pentagon is devoting more resources to a better plan of attack, security has improved in Iraq's contested central regions. But: 

* Iraq is still a dangerous and volatile place, far from stable. Sectarian militias, foreign terrorists, and domestic insurgents remain potent; violence remains unacceptably high. And: 

* Strategically, which is to say politically, the surge is working much less well. As the National Intelligence Estimate summarized, "Broadly accepted political compromises required for sustained security, long-term political progress, and economic development are unlikely to emerge unless there is a fundamental shift in the factors driving Iraqi political and security developments." 

* Absent a political settlement, Iraq's government and security forces are too incompetent, sectarian, and corrupt to stabilize the country without continued large-scale U.S. intervention. 

* The troop surge is not sustainable much beyond next spring unless combat tours are extended, which would strain the Army to or near the breaking point. Pre-surge forces could be maintained a while longer but not indefinitely.

In sum: The surge has temporarily stabilized what had become a downward spiral and, by doing so, has bought some time. But not much time, and the Iraqis have done little with it. [/i]

Petraeus today confirmed a planned 25% drawdown by next spring - so there is a great necessity of improving the Iraqi political situation and the Iraqi armed forces in the interim.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
The Dems set up an independent panel to dilute the impact of the Petraeus Report. Then when it reports something that doesn’t fit the anti-war talking points, they express “immediate skepticism.”

With regard to casualties, it was predicted that casualties would rise with the surge. Yet they’ve declined since the surge went into full force – something noted by McClatchy, actually:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003636490

100meters wrote:
Yes, down from earlier this year, but as you know the issue with this is EVERY year this happens (the intensity in attacks is cyclical) and comparing year to year would be the actual helpful comparison, and obviously that number has actually risen—
real success would mean keeping deaths down when they “should be” rising, but that’s just my opinion…[/quote]

From the McClatchy source:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/19493.html

EXCERPT:

[i]Some critics argue that there’s an annual drop-off in casualties in the summer, and that we erred by not accounting for that. Using that approach, any decline in casualties from May’s peak was simply to be expected and has nothing to do with the surge or combat operations.

But that doesn’t explain why this August, in particular, when the U.S. supposedly was increasing combat operations, deaths dropped. Here are the summer statistics from icasualties:

Month Hostile Non-Hostile Total
Aug 2007 56 28 84
July 2007 67 12 79
June 2007 93 8 101
May 2007 120 6 126
Aug 2006 58 7 65
July 2006 38 5 43
June 2006 57 4 61
May 2006 57 12 69
Aug 2005 75 10 85
July 2005 45 9 54
June 2005 69 9 78
May 2005 67 13 80
Aug 2004 55 11 66
July 2004 44 10 54
June 2004 37 5 42
May 2004 62 18 80
Aug 2003 16 19 35
July 2003 28 20 48
June 2003 18 12 30
May 2003 8 29 37

As you can see, deaths always drop between May and June, and, since 2004, they’ve always risen between July and August, except this year, when they dropped �?? even though there were an additional 30,000 or so American troops in Iraq. So there’s no reason to think that the drop in hostile deaths that took place between July and August this year was a normal seasonal variation. In fact, it was aberrant. Without the Aug. 22 helicopter crash, which no one so far has attributed to hostile action, total deaths would have been lower in August �?? breaking a long pattern.[/i]

53

Good video about the surge:

54

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:
So there were how many goals again? And we should forget about anything showing progress - particularly, the military progress and the operations against al Queda in Iraq (not the mention the disintegration of the former Baathist Sunni insurgency) - and simply focus on the political situation? I would think that a lot of folks would disagree.

And progress is definitely being made:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/06/america/military.php

100meters wrote:
yes progress according to this one report but contradicted here by the others(mentioned even in the article, no?)

I don’t think there is much debate about whether there has been military progress. Or that there hasn’t been enough political progress. The reports today further corroborated idea of military progress.

I’m lifting this very good summary from an article at Reason ( Be Angry—but Patient ):

[i]People who knew better than to listen to partisans paid more attention to a raft of August progress reports: a partially declassified National Intelligence Estimate; a leaked draft report [PDF] from the Government Accountability Office; early accounts of a congressionally commissioned study of Iraqi security forces; and reports from members of Congress and think-tank experts who traveled to Iraq.

The assessments disagreed on some details, such as how much Iraq’s security forces are improving, if at all. Taken together, however, they painted a coherent picture, which Petraeus’s report seemed unlikely to change.

* Tactically, which is to say militarily, the troop surge is making headway. Partly thanks to Sunni tribes joining with U.S. forces against Al Qaeda, and partly because the Pentagon is devoting more resources to a better plan of attack, security has improved in Iraq's contested central regions. But: 

* Iraq is still a dangerous and volatile place, far from stable. Sectarian militias, foreign terrorists, and domestic insurgents remain potent; violence remains unacceptably high. And: 

* Strategically, which is to say politically, the surge is working much less well. As the National Intelligence Estimate summarized, "Broadly accepted political compromises required for sustained security, long-term political progress, and economic development are unlikely to emerge unless there is a fundamental shift in the factors driving Iraqi political and security developments." 

* Absent a political settlement, Iraq's government and security forces are too incompetent, sectarian, and corrupt to stabilize the country without continued large-scale U.S. intervention. 

* The troop surge is not sustainable much beyond next spring unless combat tours are extended, which would strain the Army to or near the breaking point. Pre-surge forces could be maintained a while longer but not indefinitely.

In sum: The surge has temporarily stabilized what had become a downward spiral and, by doing so, has bought some time. But not much time, and the Iraqis have done little with it. [/i]

Petraeus today confirmed a planned 25% drawdown by next spring - so there is a great necessity of improving the Iraqi political situation and the Iraqi armed forces in the interim.

BostonBarrister wrote:
The Dems set up an independent panel to dilute the impact of the Petraeus Report. Then when it reports something that doesn’t fit the anti-war talking points, they express “immediate skepticism.”

With regard to casualties, it was predicted that casualties would rise with the surge. Yet they’ve declined since the surge went into full force – something noted by McClatchy, actually:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003636490

100meters wrote:
Yes, down from earlier this year, but as you know the issue with this is EVERY year this happens (the intensity in attacks is cyclical) and comparing year to year would be the actual helpful comparison, and obviously that number has actually risen—
real success would mean keeping deaths down when they “should be” rising, but that’s just my opinion…

From the McClatchy source:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/19493.html

EXCERPT:

[i]Some critics argue that there’s an annual drop-off in casualties in the summer, and that we erred by not accounting for that. Using that approach, any decline in casualties from May’s peak was simply to be expected and has nothing to do with the surge or combat operations.

But that doesn’t explain why this August, in particular, when the U.S. supposedly was increasing combat operations, deaths dropped. Here are the summer statistics from icasualties:

Month Hostile Non-Hostile Total
Aug 2007 56 28 84
July 2007 67 12 79
June 2007 93 8 101
May 2007 120 6 126
Aug 2006 58 7 65
July 2006 38 5 43
June 2006 57 4 61
May 2006 57 12 69
Aug 2005 75 10 85
July 2005 45 9 54
June 2005 69 9 78
May 2005 67 13 80
Aug 2004 55 11 66
July 2004 44 10 54
June 2004 37 5 42
May 2004 62 18 80
Aug 2003 16 19 35
July 2003 28 20 48
June 2003 18 12 30
May 2003 8 29 37

As you can see, deaths always drop between May and June, and, since 2004, they’ve always risen between July and August, except this year, when they dropped �?? even though there were an additional 30,000 or so American troops in Iraq. So there’s no reason to think that the drop in hostile deaths that took place between July and August this year was a normal seasonal variation. In fact, it was aberrant. Without the Aug. 22 helicopter crash, which no one so far has attributed to hostile action, total deaths would have been lower in August �?? breaking a long pattern.[/i]

[/quote]
August 2006 58/7/65
August 2007 56/28/84

Well adding hostile/non-hostile is a distinction worth noting I guess, but damn if I’d argue that it meant the surge was working. Especially with abberations in trends appearing all over the place (for example septembers)

55

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Some of these clowns spew hate with no regard for anything else.

And you support to make my case…

The point was that even though many around here disagree with some of BB’s viewpoints, he never stoops to the personal level, name calling, and other destructive things. He assumes good faith and argues with reason rather than emotions.

Contrast with hedo or yourself calling me a “cyber-Jihadist”, or JeffR portraying a withdrawal from Iraq as a “defeat” and constantly speaking about “honor” and other gimmicks.

Respect is something you earn by behaving respectfully, not by shouting the loudest or coming up with the funniest insult. At the end of the day, we are very unlikely to switch positions on the major issues, but we could at least try to teach each other new things in the hope that it helps us perceive new shades of gray.

In short, don’t call people “clowns”, and if you must, try to do it in your trademark witty posts (which I personally miss btw).[/quote]

You are treated the way you treat others. Respect is earned not given. A foreign concept to touchy feely socialists like yourself.

You are a condescending prick with an agenda thus you are treated as such. You also stoop to dishonesty on a frequent basis therefore most of your posts are dismissed as more of the same. You want to be treated differently, act differently. Maybe even train and show an interest in Biotest other then spamming the website. It’s too late for you now on T-Nation but maybe the other sites you post on are more tolerant.

Hope this clears things up for you.

56

[quote]100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:
So there were how many goals again? And we should forget about anything showing progress - particularly, the military progress and the operations against al Queda in Iraq (not the mention the disintegration of the former Baathist Sunni insurgency) - and simply focus on the political situation? I would think that a lot of folks would disagree.

And progress is definitely being made:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/06/america/military.php

100meters wrote:
yes progress according to this one report but contradicted here by the others(mentioned even in the article, no?)

I don’t think there is much debate about whether there has been military progress. Or that there hasn’t been enough political progress. The reports today further corroborated idea of military progress.

I’m lifting this very good summary from an article at Reason ( Be Angry—but Patient ):

[i]People who knew better than to listen to partisans paid more attention to a raft of August progress reports: a partially declassified National Intelligence Estimate; a leaked draft report [PDF] from the Government Accountability Office; early accounts of a congressionally commissioned study of Iraqi security forces; and reports from members of Congress and think-tank experts who traveled to Iraq.

The assessments disagreed on some details, such as how much Iraq’s security forces are improving, if at all. Taken together, however, they painted a coherent picture, which Petraeus’s report seemed unlikely to change.

* Tactically, which is to say militarily, the troop surge is making headway. Partly thanks to Sunni tribes joining with U.S. forces against Al Qaeda, and partly because the Pentagon is devoting more resources to a better plan of attack, security has improved in Iraq's contested central regions. But: 

* Iraq is still a dangerous and volatile place, far from stable. Sectarian militias, foreign terrorists, and domestic insurgents remain potent; violence remains unacceptably high. And: 

* Strategically, which is to say politically, the surge is working much less well. As the National Intelligence Estimate summarized, "Broadly accepted political compromises required for sustained security, long-term political progress, and economic development are unlikely to emerge unless there is a fundamental shift in the factors driving Iraqi political and security developments." 

* Absent a political settlement, Iraq's government and security forces are too incompetent, sectarian, and corrupt to stabilize the country without continued large-scale U.S. intervention. 

* The troop surge is not sustainable much beyond next spring unless combat tours are extended, which would strain the Army to or near the breaking point. Pre-surge forces could be maintained a while longer but not indefinitely.

In sum: The surge has temporarily stabilized what had become a downward spiral and, by doing so, has bought some time. But not much time, and the Iraqis have done little with it. [/i]

Petraeus today confirmed a planned 25% drawdown by next spring - so there is a great necessity of improving the Iraqi political situation and the Iraqi armed forces in the interim.

BostonBarrister wrote:
The Dems set up an independent panel to dilute the impact of the Petraeus Report. Then when it reports something that doesn’t fit the anti-war talking points, they express “immediate skepticism.”

With regard to casualties, it was predicted that casualties would rise with the surge. Yet they’ve declined since the surge went into full force – something noted by McClatchy, actually:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003636490

100meters wrote:
Yes, down from earlier this year, but as you know the issue with this is EVERY year this happens (the intensity in attacks is cyclical) and comparing year to year would be the actual helpful comparison, and obviously that number has actually risen—
real success would mean keeping deaths down when they “should be” rising, but that’s just my opinion…

From the McClatchy source:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/19493.html

EXCERPT:

[i]Some critics argue that there’s an annual drop-off in casualties in the summer, and that we erred by not accounting for that. Using that approach, any decline in casualties from May’s peak was simply to be expected and has nothing to do with the surge or combat operations.

But that doesn’t explain why this August, in particular, when the U.S. supposedly was increasing combat operations, deaths dropped. Here are the summer statistics from icasualties:

Month Hostile Non-Hostile Total
Aug 2007 56 28 84
July 2007 67 12 79
June 2007 93 8 101
May 2007 120 6 126
Aug 2006 58 7 65
July 2006 38 5 43
June 2006 57 4 61
May 2006 57 12 69
Aug 2005 75 10 85
July 2005 45 9 54
June 2005 69 9 78
May 2005 67 13 80
Aug 2004 55 11 66
July 2004 44 10 54
June 2004 37 5 42
May 2004 62 18 80
Aug 2003 16 19 35
July 2003 28 20 48
June 2003 18 12 30
May 2003 8 29 37

As you can see, deaths always drop between May and June, and, since 2004, they’ve always risen between July and August, except this year, when they dropped �?? even though there were an additional 30,000 or so American troops in Iraq. So there’s no reason to think that the drop in hostile deaths that took place between July and August this year was a normal seasonal variation. In fact, it was aberrant. Without the Aug. 22 helicopter crash, which no one so far has attributed to hostile action, total deaths would have been lower in August �?? breaking a long pattern.[/i]

August 2006 58/7/65
August 2007 56/28/84

Well adding hostile/non-hostile is a distinction worth noting I guess, but damn if I’d argue that it meant the surge was working. Especially with abberations in trends appearing all over the place (for example septembers)

[/quote]

You really didn’t need to listen to the General to form an opinion about the surge did you? Be honest with yourself for minute. He could have said anything and you would have the exact same opinion…formed by the DNC.

57

Rep. Wexler rants: “Tragically, it is my understanding that seven more [U.S.] troops have died today while we are talking.”

�??In your testimony today, you claim that the surge is working and that you need more time. With all due respect, General, among unbiased, nonpartisan experts, the consensus is stark. The surge has failed, based on most parameters.�??
<…>
�??In truth, war-related deaths have doubled in Iraq in 2007 compared to last year. Tragically, it is my understanding that seven more American troops have died while we’ve been talking today. Cherry-picking statistics or selectively massaging information will not change the basic truth. And please understand, General Petraeus, I do not question your credibility. You are a true patriot. I admire your service to our nation. But I do question your facts [and] … testimony stating that the dramatic reduction in sectarian deaths is opposite from the national intelligence estimate, the Government Accounting Office, and several other nonbiased, nonpartisan reports."
<…>
�??This testimony today is eerily similar to the testimony the American people heard on April 28, 1967 from General William Westmoreland, when he told the American people America was making progress in Vietnam.�??
<…>
�??We’ve heard a lot today about America’s credibility. President Bush recently stated we should not have withdraw our troops from Vietnam because of the great damage to America’s credibility.

�??General, there are 58,195 names etched into the Vietnam war memorial. Twenty years from now, when we build the Iraq war memorial on the national mall, how many more men and women will have been sacrificed to protect our so-called credibility? How many more names will be added to the wall before we admit it is time to leave? How many more names, General?�??

GEN. Petraeus responds: �??Congressman, first of all, I have not said that the surge should be extended. In fact, my recommendations are that the surge be curtailed earlier than it would have been. The forces of the surge could have run all the way until April before we began pulling them out, and that would be if we did not recommend its continuation beyond that. My recommendations, in fact, include the withdrawal of the Marine Expeditionary Unit this month without replacement, and then a brigade starting in mid-December, and then another one about every 45 days. And that’s a considerable amount prior to, in fact, how far the surge could have run if we’d just pushed everybody for 15 months.�??
<…>
“With respect to the facts that I have laid out today, I very much stand by those. As I mentioned, the GAO actually did cut off data at least five weeks and in some cases longer than that in the assessment that it made, and in fact those subsequent five weeks have been important in establishing a trend that security incidents have gone down as they have and have reached, as I mentioned, the lowest level since June 2006 with respect to incidents and with April 2006 in terms of attacks.”

�??I stand by the explanation of the reduction in ethno-sectarian deaths and so forth.�??

�??And lastly I would say, Congressman, that no one is more conscious of the loss of life than the commander of the forces. That is something I take and feel very deeply. And if I did not think that this was a hugely important endeavor, and if I did not think that it was an endeavor in which we could succeed, I would not have testified as I did to you all here today.�??

The GAO only reported on the firts five weeks and ignored the last five weeks?

WTF???

58

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Spend some time in some other forums. It is easier to be witty when some neonazi isn’t blaming the jews for every evil in the world or some partisan hack spews bile without discussing the issues. [/quote]

Point taken.

59

[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:
So there were how many goals again? And we should forget about anything showing progress - particularly, the military progress and the operations against al Queda in Iraq (not the mention the disintegration of the former Baathist Sunni insurgency) - and simply focus on the political situation? I would think that a lot of folks would disagree.

And progress is definitely being made:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/06/america/military.php

100meters wrote:
yes progress according to this one report but contradicted here by the others(mentioned even in the article, no?)

I don’t think there is much debate about whether there has been military progress. Or that there hasn’t been enough political progress. The reports today further corroborated idea of military progress.

I’m lifting this very good summary from an article at Reason ( Be Angry—but Patient ):

[i]People who knew better than to listen to partisans paid more attention to a raft of August progress reports: a partially declassified National Intelligence Estimate; a leaked draft report [PDF] from the Government Accountability Office; early accounts of a congressionally commissioned study of Iraqi security forces; and reports from members of Congress and think-tank experts who traveled to Iraq.

The assessments disagreed on some details, such as how much Iraq’s security forces are improving, if at all. Taken together, however, they painted a coherent picture, which Petraeus’s report seemed unlikely to change.

* Tactically, which is to say militarily, the troop surge is making headway. Partly thanks to Sunni tribes joining with U.S. forces against Al Qaeda, and partly because the Pentagon is devoting more resources to a better plan of attack, security has improved in Iraq's contested central regions. But: 

* Iraq is still a dangerous and volatile place, far from stable. Sectarian militias, foreign terrorists, and domestic insurgents remain potent; violence remains unacceptably high. And: 

* Strategically, which is to say politically, the surge is working much less well. As the National Intelligence Estimate summarized, "Broadly accepted political compromises required for sustained security, long-term political progress, and economic development are unlikely to emerge unless there is a fundamental shift in the factors driving Iraqi political and security developments." 

* Absent a political settlement, Iraq's government and security forces are too incompetent, sectarian, and corrupt to stabilize the country without continued large-scale U.S. intervention. 

* The troop surge is not sustainable much beyond next spring unless combat tours are extended, which would strain the Army to or near the breaking point. Pre-surge forces could be maintained a while longer but not indefinitely.

In sum: The surge has temporarily stabilized what had become a downward spiral and, by doing so, has bought some time. But not much time, and the Iraqis have done little with it. [/i]

Petraeus today confirmed a planned 25% drawdown by next spring - so there is a great necessity of improving the Iraqi political situation and the Iraqi armed forces in the interim.

BostonBarrister wrote:
The Dems set up an independent panel to dilute the impact of the Petraeus Report. Then when it reports something that doesn’t fit the anti-war talking points, they express “immediate skepticism.”

With regard to casualties, it was predicted that casualties would rise with the surge. Yet they’ve declined since the surge went into full force – something noted by McClatchy, actually:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003636490

100meters wrote:
Yes, down from earlier this year, but as you know the issue with this is EVERY year this happens (the intensity in attacks is cyclical) and comparing year to year would be the actual helpful comparison, and obviously that number has actually risen—
real success would mean keeping deaths down when they “should be” rising, but that’s just my opinion…

From the McClatchy source:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/19493.html

EXCERPT:

[i]Some critics argue that there’s an annual drop-off in casualties in the summer, and that we erred by not accounting for that. Using that approach, any decline in casualties from May’s peak was simply to be expected and has nothing to do with the surge or combat operations.

But that doesn’t explain why this August, in particular, when the U.S. supposedly was increasing combat operations, deaths dropped. Here are the summer statistics from icasualties:

Month Hostile Non-Hostile Total
Aug 2007 56 28 84
July 2007 67 12 79
June 2007 93 8 101
May 2007 120 6 126
Aug 2006 58 7 65
July 2006 38 5 43
June 2006 57 4 61
May 2006 57 12 69
Aug 2005 75 10 85
July 2005 45 9 54
June 2005 69 9 78
May 2005 67 13 80
Aug 2004 55 11 66
July 2004 44 10 54
June 2004 37 5 42
May 2004 62 18 80
Aug 2003 16 19 35
July 2003 28 20 48
June 2003 18 12 30
May 2003 8 29 37

As you can see, deaths always drop between May and June, and, since 2004, they’ve always risen between July and August, except this year, when they dropped �?? even though there were an additional 30,000 or so American troops in Iraq. So there’s no reason to think that the drop in hostile deaths that took place between July and August this year was a normal seasonal variation. In fact, it was aberrant. Without the Aug. 22 helicopter crash, which no one so far has attributed to hostile action, total deaths would have been lower in August �?? breaking a long pattern.[/i]

August 2006 58/7/65
August 2007 56/28/84

Well adding hostile/non-hostile is a distinction worth noting I guess, but damn if I’d argue that it meant the surge was working. Especially with abberations in trends appearing all over the place (for example septembers)

You really didn’t need to listen to the General to form an opinion about the surge did you? Be honest with yourself for minute. He could have said anything and you would have the exact same opinion…formed by the DNC.
[/quote]
Uhmmm you did it again…
I’m saying/said something factual: MORE deaths.
Your idiotic response that those facts have a liberal bias.
Jeebus BB was able to come right in and give me something to think about (which you unfortunately will have to disregard because of the source’s liberal bias towards facts.)

Perhaps you really are stupid (still think you pretend but damn its hard to tell)

60

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:
So there were how many goals again? And we should forget about anything showing progress - particularly, the military progress and the operations against al Queda in Iraq (not the mention the disintegration of the former Baathist Sunni insurgency) - and simply focus on the political situation? I would think that a lot of folks would disagree.

And progress is definitely being made:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/06/america/military.php

100meters wrote:
yes progress according to this one report but contradicted here by the others(mentioned even in the article, no?)

I don’t think there is much debate about whether there has been military progress. Or that there hasn’t been enough political progress. The reports today further corroborated idea of military progress.

I’m lifting this very good summary from an article at Reason ( Be Angry—but Patient ):

[i]People who knew better than to listen to partisans paid more attention to a raft of August progress reports: a partially declassified National Intelligence Estimate; a leaked draft report [PDF] from the Government Accountability Office; early accounts of a congressionally commissioned study of Iraqi security forces; and reports from members of Congress and think-tank experts who traveled to Iraq.

The assessments disagreed on some details, such as how much Iraq’s security forces are improving, if at all. Taken together, however, they painted a coherent picture, which Petraeus’s report seemed unlikely to change.

* Tactically, which is to say militarily, the troop surge is making headway. Partly thanks to Sunni tribes joining with U.S. forces against Al Qaeda, and partly because the Pentagon is devoting more resources to a better plan of attack, security has improved in Iraq's contested central regions. But: 

* Iraq is still a dangerous and volatile place, far from stable. Sectarian militias, foreign terrorists, and domestic insurgents remain potent; violence remains unacceptably high. And: 

* Strategically, which is to say politically, the surge is working much less well. As the National Intelligence Estimate summarized, "Broadly accepted political compromises required for sustained security, long-term political progress, and economic development are unlikely to emerge unless there is a fundamental shift in the factors driving Iraqi political and security developments." 

* Absent a political settlement, Iraq's government and security forces are too incompetent, sectarian, and corrupt to stabilize the country without continued large-scale U.S. intervention. 

* The troop surge is not sustainable much beyond next spring unless combat tours are extended, which would strain the Army to or near the breaking point. Pre-surge forces could be maintained a while longer but not indefinitely.

In sum: The surge has temporarily stabilized what had become a downward spiral and, by doing so, has bought some time. But not much time, and the Iraqis have done little with it. [/i]

Petraeus today confirmed a planned 25% drawdown by next spring - so there is a great necessity of improving the Iraqi political situation and the Iraqi armed forces in the interim.

BostonBarrister wrote:
The Dems set up an independent panel to dilute the impact of the Petraeus Report. Then when it reports something that doesn’t fit the anti-war talking points, they express “immediate skepticism.”

With regard to casualties, it was predicted that casualties would rise with the surge. Yet they’ve declined since the surge went into full force – something noted by McClatchy, actually:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003636490

100meters wrote:
Yes, down from earlier this year, but as you know the issue with this is EVERY year this happens (the intensity in attacks is cyclical) and comparing year to year would be the actual helpful comparison, and obviously that number has actually risen—
real success would mean keeping deaths down when they “should be” rising, but that’s just my opinion…

From the McClatchy source:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/19493.html

EXCERPT:

[i]Some critics argue that there’s an annual drop-off in casualties in the summer, and that we erred by not accounting for that. Using that approach, any decline in casualties from May’s peak was simply to be expected and has nothing to do with the surge or combat operations.

But that doesn’t explain why this August, in particular, when the U.S. supposedly was increasing combat operations, deaths dropped. Here are the summer statistics from icasualties:

Month Hostile Non-Hostile Total
Aug 2007 56 28 84
July 2007 67 12 79
June 2007 93 8 101
May 2007 120 6 126
Aug 2006 58 7 65
July 2006 38 5 43
June 2006 57 4 61
May 2006 57 12 69
Aug 2005 75 10 85
July 2005 45 9 54
June 2005 69 9 78
May 2005 67 13 80
Aug 2004 55 11 66
July 2004 44 10 54
June 2004 37 5 42
May 2004 62 18 80
Aug 2003 16 19 35
July 2003 28 20 48
June 2003 18 12 30
May 2003 8 29 37

As you can see, deaths always drop between May and June, and, since 2004, they’ve always risen between July and August, except this year, when they dropped �?? even though there were an additional 30,000 or so American troops in Iraq. So there’s no reason to think that the drop in hostile deaths that took place between July and August this year was a normal seasonal variation. In fact, it was aberrant. Without the Aug. 22 helicopter crash, which no one so far has attributed to hostile action, total deaths would have been lower in August �?? breaking a long pattern.[/i]

August 2006 58/7/65
August 2007 56/28/84

Well adding hostile/non-hostile is a distinction worth noting I guess, but damn if I’d argue that it meant the surge was working. Especially with abberations in trends appearing all over the place (for example septembers)

You really didn’t need to listen to the General to form an opinion about the surge did you? Be honest with yourself for minute. He could have said anything and you would have the exact same opinion…formed by the DNC.

Uhmmm you did it again…
I’m saying/said something factual: MORE deaths.
Your idiotic response that those facts have a liberal bias.
Jeebus BB was able to come right in and give me something to think about (which you unfortunately will have to disregard because of the source’s liberal bias towards facts.)

Perhaps you really are stupid (still think you pretend but damn its hard to tell)

[/quote]

You calling someone stupid…you have to be kidding. You have not made a coherent post in months kid.

I stated you didn’t really have to listen to the General and that your mind was already made up, I cited the DNC, since you follow the talking points so closely. Are they liberal? That was your statement.

You need to put down the bong. And just so we are clear. I don’t think you pretend to be stupid and your wit needs a lot of work. It’s more like childish anger then anything else. Perhaps Madame Pelosi’s charm is wearing off on you.