The surge has failed...already.

[Yeager]

Geeze, as if their bickering hasn't already provided enough motivation for AQ...

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070613203802.7yla5iav&show_article=1

The scary thing for me is that Reid and Pelosi are both going to have Bush looking moderate and reasonable again here in no time.  These anti-war democrats really ought to try harder at being relevant and mainstream.

[Sandman]

Is 31% mainstream?

According to the latest poll, 67% disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq.

[Yeager]

what percent of the population voted for failure last Nov. as opposed to a change of course in Iraq, which is what the surge was supposed to do, and in September we are set to get a status report on the surge from Iraq.  For Reid and Pelosi to already start claiming failure is a good in your estimation?

[SirLoin]

I t's not current polls that have any relevance..

Only when history starts repeating itself should we be concerned.

[Odee]

Oh yeah... Like anything out of "Dingy" Reid and his ilk's mouths is sacred or believable...

Originally posted by Sandman
Is 31% mainstream?

According to the latest poll, 67% disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq.

I don't recall the majority of the Nation ever being polled, in any of these *cough* Polls on how the Nation feels.

You really want to know how we're doing over there, then either go there, or talk to the people that are there.

[Viking]

If he has to go there to get info on how things are going then may I suggest the Army Public Affairs Media Relations Division is not doing a bangup job. The fact that the US Armed Forces don't brag their butts off how well things are going is in of itself very telling. They don't even seem to try to lie about it like they did in Vietnam.

[storch]

we a mired down in a an unwinnable war.  the truth is we are garrissoning a region long known to be troublesome.  furthermore this war, like vietnam is being micromanaged by the imbeciles in washington.  loss of American life is slight but these insignificant national losses are sometimes monumental personal losses.  the softness and me me meness of our society is showing, idiots like pelosi and reid only encourage our opposition.  it's time for muadib to release gurney hallek and his atomics.  I did not type that, I'm not even here.

[Shuckins]

Now is not the time to go all wobbly on the war.  There are signs that the U.S. and Iraqi government are beginning to get a handle on controlling the terrorists.  The Kurdish north has been quiet and stable for quite some time, and an experiment in which the incorporation of tribal chieftains' men in the security forces has done much to stabilise another province (Anbar I believe).  The U.S. and Iraqi forces have high hopes of expanding that experiment into the other provinces.

Having ridden voter disatisfaction with the war to a political victory in the last congressional election, Pelosi and friends hope to ride the same nag to victory in the 2008 presidential election.  To achieve that goal, they must not allow the voting public to see the war as anything but a failure.

Could she and her cohorts have gained control of the government in the absence of the war issue?  I serioiusly doubt it.  She knows this.  Ergo, she bangs the anti-war drum for all its worth, demagoguing one of the least bloody wars in U.S. history into a defeat.

If, as a result, the U.S. begins a precipitate pullout before the job is finished, all the wealth and blood we have expended will have been in vain, and our prestige among our allies will take a hit from which it may never recover.

[Suave]

There's a war ?

Heh, we were off to a fine start when rummy was saying that it isn't a war anymore back in may '03.

When an additional "surge" of 20,000 troops is considered a change in strategy you know that the job isn't going to get done. Not with this mentality.

Twenty thousand is rediculous token gesture, we need 15 times that many to secure the populace, which is how to beat an insurgancy. You can't beat an insurgancy with bombs and bullets, you beat the insurgents by making them irrelevant. If you can't secure the towns and thereby secure the confidence of the people then you can't make the insurgency go away.

[storch]

we cannot actually win there unless we are prepared for a millenium of garrissoning that sh i itehole.  those folks just don't see the world as you and I do.  you need to spend some time speaking with people from that region to get a good understanding of their world view.  sadly most of us have no interest in seeing things from another's view.

[lazs2]

sandie..   what does "dissaprove of the way Bush is handling the war" mean?

Does that mean that 67% think we need more troops or less troops or more gay troops or different uniforms or to bomb the place back to the stone age or...

Does it mean 67% feel we ought to just pack up and leave today and pretend it never happened?    What does it mean?  

What are some of the solutions that have the support of the majority of the people?   is it billarys solution?   osamabamas?   what exactly are there solutions?

I think things should have been done differently... I don't think we should try to get all the soldiers on the afternoon flight out of there.

lazs

[Yeager]

Looks like Pelosis' dear friend, the Syrian, is projecting his right to influence politics in Lebanon again....

What a great thing her little trip to Syria was.....

[Bodhi]

Pelosi and Reid told Bush in the letter that they planned to send him new legislation to "limit the US mission in Iraq, begin the phased redeployment of US forces, and bring the war to a responsible end."

I wish that Pelosi and Reid would just die and go away.  They are a cancer that is eating at our nation from within.  Sadly too damn many sheep continue to vote imbeciles like Pelosi and Reid in.

[EagleDNY]

Originally posted by Sandman
Is 31% mainstream?

According to the latest poll, 67% disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq.

The smartest thing in that poll is that 2/3 of those polled think that neither side is winning.  Terrorist tactics cannot defeat you militarily, they seek to defeat you by removing your will to fight.  Militarily, you can't stomp out the terrorists without stomping out everybody in the area, and we aren't willing to do that because we aren't about to kill the innocents along with the terrorists.

The problem I have with the democrats these days is that their will to fight seems completely linked to the polls, and not in any way linked to the actual situation.  In '03, they were all hawks, telling us how we had to do something about Iraq and Saddam, and how dangerous his WMDs were.  When we finally captured Saddam, they were all there with their faces in the cameras taking credit for it.  

Now that the war is "unpopular", suddenly they are all for getting out, despite the fact that Iran is fomenting instability and civil war all across the region (not just in Iraq).  Whether it is fatah and hamas fighting it out in Gaza, or hezbollah fighting in Lebanon, you can trace the weapons and cash right back to Iran.  The "Iraqi Civil War" that the democrats are saying we are in the middle of can be traced right to Iran and Al Qaeda, and it certainly isn't going to stop if we leave.  Nor would I expect Al Qaeda to suddenly decide to stop attacking Americans around the world should we just up and go home.

If they are there, fight them there.  At the same time, we help counter the influence of Iran, and we help protect those that want something more for Iraq than it becoming an Iranian client state.  Maybe Iraq does need a different political solution, maybe it needs to be split into 3 states, maybe it needs local elections, etc.  I'd submit that the best chance for any of that happening is with our being there to help, and if the Iraqis decide that they don't need us there, then we go home.

EagleDNY
$.02

[FrodeMk3]

Origanally posted by Shuckins

Now is not the time to go all wobbly on the war. There are signs that the U.S. and Iraqi government are beginning to get a handle on controlling the terrorists. The Kurdish north has been quiet and stable for quite some time, and an experiment in which the incorporation of tribal chieftains' men in the security forces has done much to stabilise another province (Anbar I believe). The U.S. and Iraqi forces have high hopes of expanding that experiment into the other provinces.

When you said this Shuckins, It reminded me alot about an old Drag racing tactic that guys' used to use, called "Sandbagging". To get a guy to put up some decent money in an impromptu street race, You'd pick out the wealthiest car that you were sure you could outrun. Then, you would run other cars(with your intended victim watching) and only push your car hard enough to either beat them, or Slightly lose. You might even lose a small wager or two, to get the guy who wanted to put up alot of cash to run you.
Then, You take his bet, and run your car as hard as it will run. The loser is mad because you tricked him into thinking you were slower than he was, but it doesn't matter because you took his moolah.

Now, where this comes in in relation to the war, is that the terrorists' might be backing off some, in an effort to get the U.S. to relax it's Troop strengths, so that terrorist cells will stand a better chance in a fight with security forces. It might also be that they are training they're next generation of fighters. In either case, we are locked down until god-knows-when. The way we are deployed in Iraq, we can't take very much conventional military action against someone like Iran, or N. Korea. Our force levels' are just too depleted. And in addition to that, We have run low on allies that are willing to help us. Diplomatically, we have Israel in the region to help us, But with they're commitments' in Lebanon, I don't know what they could contribute. The Brits' help, of course, but beyond that, It seems' like we are on our own. This is now the time to tread cautiously.