How much has the violence dropped

[mbossman2]

in Iraq since the end of the troop buildup known as the "surge" was completed (BTW, my nephew is part of the surge - a .50 cal machine gunner on convoy duty)?

it took a Swiss news organization (http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/international/ticker/detail/Sharp_drop_in_violence_seen_in_Iraq.html?siteSect= 143&sid=8342147&cKey=1193068430000&ty=ti) to cover even some of it (including an increase in some areas):


overall violence down 70%
drop in car bombs - 67%
roadside bombs - down 40%
In the dreaded and oft examined and spotlighted Anbar province - 82% drop in violent deaths
Overall civilian deaths - down 50%


instead of this, you see headlines like this:
Baltimore Sun: Iraqis doubtful of improvement, some blame US
seattle times: Iraq war costs: sharpen the pencil
Newsday: Editorial: US self-inflicted wounds in Iraq

[Kuch]

You know as well as I do that there are some people who find the idea of war or open conflict totally unacceptable, no matter what the reason. That’s just the way they are. Maybe some of the people in charge of the periodicals you listed are such people. Or, maybe they’re just hesitant to claim that the troops surge has worked. I’m sure there is a mix of political motivations involved in such decisions.

The truth is that the surge is a good idea. Ideally, we would be able to send more troops over there and have the required footprint needed to keep a tight hold on things while we try and rebuild. We have been bit by the “do more with less” bug for the past 5 years and I hope most people have realized that things don’t always work out well that way. I personally think Rumsfeld was an idiot for trying to conduct a force transformation while trying to prosecute two wars. If you want to occupy a country, even temporarily, you need an enormous number of people to do so. The tighter the security while we train up their cops and military, the more we can get done. Once we leave, the rest should be up to them.

[jedi_knight01]

Just like the dems blame the spread of the Wild Fires in California, on the lack of man power to fight them. This is because (according to the dems) all available bodies are in Iraq..

[VF500]

It's the same way with the economy. When the stock market drops it's all over the front pages. When it rebounds and sets a higher record there's nary a word. How can the market going down be so news worthy but the opposite isn't. Strange, huh.

[miketoolathlon]

Hmmm
I am... not sure

[whr2206]

Thats good news and I'm glad to hear it.

I think its just chance though. I highly doubt 20,000 troops are really affecting much of the security situation.

I'm not anti-surge... I just think we need a hell of a lot more troops than what we have. I'm in favor of a system simliar to Germany's. Either 2 years social service or join the military.

I'm not much for half-assing when it comes to the military. Either send everything we have to spare or leave. :D

[VF500]

Thats good news and I'm glad to hear it.

I think its just chance though. I highly doubt 20,000 troops are really affecting much of the security situation.

I'm not anti-surge... I just think we need a hell of a lot more troops than what we have. I'm in favor of a system simliar to Germany's. Either 2 years social service or join the military.

I'm not much for half-assing when it comes to the military. Either send everything we have to spare or leave. :D
You got that right. There's no substitute for overwhelming superiority. Due to liberal screams of anguish, the military has been forced into a postition of using a minimal number of troops in an attempt to win without looking like we're really trying.

[heyhey]

You got that right. There's no substitute for overwhelming superiority. Due to liberal screams of anguish, the military has been forced into a postition of using a minimal number of troops in an attempt to win without looking like we're really trying.
so your for the draft?

the person who decided to go in to this conflict with reduced troops was not a liberal and went against the advice of his generals...

that person was donald rumsfeld... remember the american people were sold on this war right before we went in there... we could have gone in with triple the force... no liberal was holding him back his own miscaluclation was.

[JoeM]

I believe the Rumsfeld quote was "As you know, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time."

That was the military left by 8 years of Commander and Chief Clinton.

Oh, sorry, maybe I should have called him "Commander and Thief", one of your many insulting names for President Bush.

The best thing that could happen for the country as a whole and for the over-indulged, over-praised, over-self-esteemed youth of this country would be some kind of a system of compulsary public service / military service requirement. A straight Draft is not the best way, because you end up with a huge undertrained army of people who do not want to be there, but if young people had to choose from among a bunch of choices for how to fulfill a service requirement a good number would choose the military, as a choice they made on their own.

[Kuch]

South Korea has a system of compulsory service where young males (18 yoa I think) have to serve for at least 2 years in one of the military branches or in the police. But, they have done this for years, so it is built into their educational system and everything. I’m not sure it would be very easy in the US. Enforcing the selective service is hard enough, I imagine.

Rumsfeld was an idiot. His mantra of “go to war with the Army you have, not with the Army you want” was the earmark of foolishness. You don’t use the troops (or lack thereof) to prove the previous administration was screwed up. I have no love for Clinton, but Rumsfeld was foolish.