Artysim

When Will Iraq's Tet Offensive Begin?

▼

When Will Iraq's Tet Offensive Begin?

from JoeUser Forums

Is the Surge really working?

Although I am an unabashed liberal, I would like to ask the fine folks here to consider this article without political bias. I could care less whether a republican or democratic president was responsible for giving the order to go into Iraq. History does have a habit of repeating itself- so with that in mind I'm going to go ahead and ask if the surge is really working, considering previous occupations and how they ended... first, a little history.

Back in january 1968, the North Vietnamese launched a massive offensive in concert with their irregular elements against South Vietnam and major U.S bases in country. Militarily, this offensive was a complete defeat for the north and a victory for the U.S and South Vietnamese. Politically it was a massive victory for the north (albeit unintentional by their own admission) and was a major turning point in the war- many Americans realized that the war would not end soon and the boys definitely would not be home by Christmas.

While the northern leadership was actually quite dismayed by their failure (the true goal was to spur a mass uprising in the south that would overthrow the government of the day) It also shocked the Americans, both civillian and military. While strategic planners and intel knew beforehand that the north was planning something big, they did not believe that the north could field such a large scale operation. On the tactical level execution was poor, many objectives were based on outdated or sketchy intel and small unit actions were poorly co-ordinated, further contributing to the failure of northern forces. At the end of the day though, while they failed in their objectives they still succeeded in mounting attacks against major U.S bases and headquarters and even succeeded in getting a 19 man sapper team onto the grounds of the U.S embassy in Saigon.

This failed action sent the message that the other team was still fully capable of playing ball and was far from beaten. U.S forces remained in country several more years until they withdrew with the understanding that they would continue to offer air support, intel and advisors. We all know how that went.

So, what does this have to do with Iraq? For the last year (well almost) we have been hearing about how stability is slowly returning to Iraq. Attacks are down, sectarian violence is down, and even many Sunni groups are now working in tandem with Americans and the Iraqi Gov to kick out AQ. And good on' em.

By all appearances, until last week the surge has had the appearance of working quite well. What isn't talked about too openly though is that the drop in violence has been largely due to many  insurgents agreeing not to attack coalition forces. This does not mean that they have turned in their rifles or had a change of heart.

The last couple of weeks have brought to light just how illusory these "gains" really are. When Maliki decided to go into Basra and crack down on some of Sadr's boys, all bets were off... the Green Zone was shelled for several days, resulting in several casualties. Clashes broke out in several cities, and 11 U.S service personnel have been killed since sunday.

Despite U.S and U.K air support, the government attempt to take Basra was an utter failure. Maliki headed there to personally oversee operations but had to be rescued by U.S airlift when militia fighters got too close to his headquarters. That, and an estimated 1000 members of the Iraqi army and police have either defected to the militia they were supposed to stamp out, or simply refused to fight. Now that more than a week has passed, Sadr's militia is stronger than before the failed government attempt to take Basra. Public sentiment, while polarized, is siding more with Sadr as he is being seen as a fighter of the occupation, as opposed to the government who is seen as more of a puppet of the Americans.

With the fact that there remain tens of thousands of well armed, experienced combatants in Iraq who do not share any love for the U.S, I cannot help but wonder when the Iraqi version of Tet will come. The last few weeks should serve as a clear warning sign that the other team is still on the playing field, and they can still play ball. Just because some of the factions have temporarily reigned in their actions, does not mean that they are toothless. If anything, the surge has been a perfect opportunity for many of these groups to re-group and re-arm. It is because of this that I would like to say I do not think the Surge is actually working. It has the appearance of working on the outside, but deep down the U.S will never be able to leave Iraq victoriously.

politics
23,673 views 61 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
Also, "take back their country"? You mean, to where it was under Saddam? You think Iraqi's are wishing for those days back?


If you resent the freedoms Iraqis have in voting and deciding the future of their country, then you don't deserve your own!
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
That doesn't change the fact that in trying to maintain its strength worldwide the US is forced to scale up the number of deployments. Sure it could drop its Japan base or European forces to go into Iraq, but the policymakers don't consider that a good idea.


Right which is why they say they are hurting when they are not really hurting they are uncomfortable because people are already committed and the threats are still out there. In the worse case it could take months to marshal our forces to attack abroad. Rarely have we seen the worse case.

So it's perfectly feasible for the US Army and Marine corps to be overstretched while still having enough manpower to significantly outnumber every adult man of fighting age in Iraq.


Maybe you misunderstand my point. The Marines alone could wipe out Iraq and if they call up their reserves they could take out most if not all of Iran as well. My point was that we have enough forces to stay in either Iraq or Afghanistan but not both if a major war breaks out.
SoundPackager - Customize the Windows sound scheme
Reply #28 from Stardock Forums Top

Ok, so you blindly believe a far left propaganda machine like MSNBC but you don’t believe the president or his staff or other public statements to the contrary

Ha ha ha ha ha!!!! That's real rich. MSNBC is not a "far left propaganda machine" at all. In fact I consider it rather right wing. Of course I don't believe the president. He lied to get your country into a completely unnecessary war that had absolutely nothing to do with defense. I  DO believe senior military leaders, the chief of staff of the Army, who has stated that the U.S is in serious trouble with the strain placed on the combined services.

The congress would not increase troops or funding because there were not threats that warranted the increase. The funny thing was that on September 11 2001 at 0700 Secretary Rumsfeld asked the congressional leaders for more troops and more funds and they said there was no justification for it. A few hours later the Secretary had to come up with a way to fight a war with less than he felt he needed. He did not cry that congress screwed his nation or that the previous administrations messed over the country with shortsightedness. What he did was put together a plan of action to do what was needed while everyone else was saying it could not be done at all. Remember the ten thousand casualties we were supposed to have the first day because we did not have enough troops? Well after five years we have lost less than half that number and those same people are still screaming that we are losing. My point is that Secretary Rumsfeld did the best he could with what he had and rather than failing or giving up he made it work. The military planners took up the job and put people in place to do the job and it worked. The screw-ups happened after we won the war. The troops did their job and did it well, the politicians of the opposition have weakened our nation and our troops for years and then demand perfection.

Ha ha ha ha!!!! This is absolutely ridiculous. FYI, Rumsfeld was just about the most unpopular SECdef with the Pentagon- so much so that if 9/11 hadn't have happened he probably would have been the victim of a mutiny. He knew how much he was hated by the military and so on september 10th, 2001 he made a speech to the good folks at the pentagon, in which he essentially..... declared war on the pentagon. He said that the military was an unwieldy behemoth and that it needed to have the fat trimmed off. I'll get that speech for ya and post it here.

Rummy was all about outsourcing, just so you know, which is now why there are tens of thousands of armed mercenaries in Iraq right now. Rumsfeld was also behing MULTIPLE troop reductions, as he believed that fewer soldiers could get the job done so long as they had all the fancy high tech gear we could imagine (and plenty of support from 30,000 feet).

Rumsfeld was told, by the commander of the entire U.S army, that post-occupation forces in Iraq would need to be much larger than and stay much longer than what Rumsfeld thought. In response to this, Rumsfeld fired the commander, who later turned out to be right on the money!

 

 

Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
That doesn't change the fact that in trying to maintain its strength worldwide the US is forced to scale up the number of deployments. Sure it could drop its Japan base or European forces to go into Iraq, but the policymakers don't consider that a good idea.


Closing down bases overseas like in Germany is not to maintain its strength but to pull out troops no longer needed there. Whether or not we went to war in Iraq we were already closing our bases in Germany and Japan. President Carter signed the order for Japan, and President Carter was ordering the close of the one in Germany until we needed the base to do the air war in Bosnia. What you might fail to understand is that the base closures are based on current threats around the world. Japan asked us to move out so they could turn Okinawa into the Hawaii of the Far East. Germany pissed us off and was so angering to President Clinton he wanted to hurt them and not be the bad guy so he said we were leaving Germany, causing billions of lost money to Germany. Down sizing the military was because by 2020 we were supposed to be out of Japan and by 2025 we were supposed to e out of Germany. With 195k troops coming home and no place to put them we could cut the troop levels. So you see nothing about maintaining strength world wide but to please a friendly nation at the time in the case of Japan and petty anger in the case of Germany. Congress was not going to allow bases to be closed in their districts until the bases over seas were closed. If you paid attention to the politics of the day you will see that the deals are made decades in advance.

Sure now it seems a bad idea to close those bases but the deal was done years ago.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
MSNBC is not a "far left propaganda machine" at all. In fact I consider it rather right wing.


You dont do your cause any good with statements like that. That will only demonstrate how far left you are. MSNBC is the farthest left of the TV news channels.

As for Bush Lying, that is merely an opinion, not a fact.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
You dont do your cause any good with statements like that. That will only demonstrate how far left you are. MSNBC is the farthest left of the TV news channels.


On any objective scale all US media outlets except PBS lean at least a little to the right or are so unprofessional that they cannot be considered to be on a political scale at all - the argument for American understanding of irony, Fox News, fits into that last category.

Speaking of objective research, there's lots of studies about the leanings of media organisations in the US. Hermann's, which was released initially in the late 1980s, is one of my favourites if only for the quality of the writing, but I doubt much has changed since then. Do you have a study that you're basing your right/left argument on, or is it just your own presumably exhaustive research?
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
On any objective scale all US media outlets except PBS lean at least a little to the right or are so unprofessional that they cannot be considered to be on a political scale at all


That is an oxymoron since none exists. However, I was speaking from the american perspective. One cannot say, objectively, whether the stations lean left or right since whatever bias you have will color your interpretation. However, one can objectively rank the stations on the bias they put in the news (from closes to your own to farthest away - even if the farthest away is still on your side of the spectrum). By anyone's rankings, MSNBC is clearly the furthest from the right, whether that makes it left or not is subjective.

Do you have a study that you're basing your right/left argument on, or is it just your own presumably exhaustive research?


Yes. It was a study done just last year. I beleive that it was blogged about here, but I do not recall who or when it was done (I know I commented on it). If I get some time, I will dig it up for you.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
On any objective scale all US media outlets except PBS lean at least a little to the right or are so unprofessional that they cannot be considered to be on a political scale at all - the argument for American understanding of irony, Fox News, fits into that last category.


Only if "objective" means, you've never once read a US paper or watched a US news cast.

The lefty press cheers on communists leaders like Castro and Chavez. The lefty press allowed their own reporters and tech staffs to be tortured by Hussein, and covered for him. The lefty press put McCain in the nomination for the Republican party and will do all they can to see Obama in the White House.

The lefty press NEVER reports the number of girls harmed by botched abortions in Planned Parenthood "clinics", but will spend weeks digging up dirt on a local hospital. The lefty press continues to report that idiot Jimmy Carter's verbal vomit, and will never admit that Carter never met an anti US terrorist he didn't like.

The lefty press has become the intelligence department of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. They question every word Prs. Bush says, but fall over themselves trying to trumpet anything an Al Qaeda leader spews.

Don't sit there and tell me that the "objective" will see the U.S. press as "slightly right". They aren't. They don't care to be, and they consider the right to be beneath them.

Reply #34 from Stardock Forums Top

The lefty press has become the intelligence department of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. They question every word Prs. Bush says, but fall over themselves trying to trumpet anything an Al Qaeda leader spews.

Ahhh yes, the great and expansive evil left wing media machine, funded directly by the shadow politburo that is still secretely operating in the basement of the Kremlin. I knew it was a vast left wing conspiracy! Never mind that papers like the Washington Post were founded by an ultra-conservative religious nutjob with the intent of being "conservative" news. Or you know, that Rupert Murdoch owns a bajillion different media outlets that all parrot the party line. Or, you know, talk radio which is dominated by like 90 % conservative pundits. Or you know, that far left organization called CNN that devotes a primetime slot to a conservative pundit (Glenn Beck) who pretty much accused Obama of being a terrorist (he framed it in a question, same end effect though) but has no liberal pundit to balance it out.

In my eyes the entire press has failed in their job. There should be no such thing as "conservative" news or "liberal" news. And all the pundits should be taken out and shot if you ask me. Or at least punched in the stomach real good. The press needs to get back to investigating and reporting, not the role of talking-heads that tell us what they think of the world!

Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
Never mind that papers like the Washington Post were founded by an ultra-conservative religious nutjob with the intent of being "conservative" news.


Arty, Arty, Arty....Please get your facts right. It was the Washington TIMES that was founded by the moonies! The Washington PEST is solid core left (by American standards) and proud of it. Dont beleive me? Just ask them.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
Or you know, that Rupert Murdoch owns a bajillion different media outlets that all parrot the party line. Or,


Yup, that same person who held a fundraiser for which conservative candidate? Oh, I remember now Senator Hillary Clinton, yeah she is a right wing nut job if ever YOU saw one.

Or, you know, talk radio which is dominated by like 90 % conservative pundits.


Well in the market place you make money by providing what the people want. Air America made so much money spewing hate that they are going to take over the radio. No, wait, they went bankrupt cause no one would listen to them and could not get ad money to fund their hate speech. People can’t get a view that they agree with on TV so they get it on the radio, as you pointed out 90% of the successful talk shows are conservative, that would lead me to believe that liberals are in the minority with 10%, well less than that because there are the do it your self shows, and the auto mechanic shows, the farm and gardening shows that also fall into that same 10%.

Through your own admission liberals are not part of the main stream of America. Thanks for pointing that out.

Or you know, that far left organization called CNN that devotes a primetime slot to a conservative pundit (Glenn Beck) who pretty much accused Obama of being a terrorist (he framed it in a question, same end effect though) but has no liberal pundit to balance it out.


Mr. Beck, if that is his real name, was given the slot because CNN’s ratings had sagged so deeply they needed a counter balance to the 23 hours a day of liberal views. Just like before Fox news came on the seen Lou Dobbs was kicked off of CNN because he was too conservative and they had the monopoly in the 24 hour news business. When Fox news came on the scene they quickly brought him back to get viewers. The proof is that once there is a conservative alternative to the liberal views, liberals lose. Fox is not conservative if you actually watch the programs you will see they are right down the middle. But to a liberal being in the center is so far right that it must be the extreme far right from a liberal point of view.

ABC, CBS, NBC were all varying degrees of left then CNN showed up and was just left of center and provided 24 hours of news. Then over time CNN went more to the left to the point that they ceased to be a news organization and became a propaganda network. MSMBC fought for the position of being even more far left. Fox showed up and said we are not going to colour the news left or right but tell it as it is and let the viewer decide what is good or bad. Look at their prime time line up; Special report with Britt Hume, former ABC anchor man, his one hour show give 40 minutes of news and 20 minutes of commentary with pundits from all sides to argue the points. No conclusions are made by Mr. Hume and we are left to choose who is right or wrong. Followed by flashy news by an idiot that looks good (empty suit) can’t remember his name he turns me off. Followed by Bill O’reilly, former CBS news man, and his no spin zone which again only points out the facts and he does have comments as to what he believes is right or wrong but he does not favor any political side. If the left is wrong on that topic he points it out the same with the right. then you have Gretta who came from the legal channel or something like that to CNN and then to FOX. These are not right wing zealots that push their ideology as fact. Contrast that with the other news organizations and you have the opposite. Fox only has 2 million viewers less than the 30 million of CNN yet they still have the highest rated shows on cable. What does that tell you?

In my eyes the entire press has failed in their job. There should be no such thing as "conservative" news or "liberal" news. And all the pundits should be taken out and shot if you ask me. Or at least punched in the stomach real good. The press needs to get back to investigating and reporting, not the role of talking-heads that tell us what they think of the world!


Yes, the fascist way is always the best. Why let us poor dumb people see the news for what it is and say this is wrong we should do something about it. All the colour commentary that leans politically one side or the other is all from the left leaning press that wants us to see things their way. Fox had been doing exactly as you desire and you want them taken off the air and shot because it disagrees with you. That sounds very fair if your goal is to take away all rights and put a central government in charge of our lives.
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top

I think the implied ending to that statement was "from the Americans and their puppet Iraqi government", rather than implying some sort of time travel-like 'then is now' adventure.

In that case Germany should be given back to the Nazis first. Fair is fair.

Germany, like Japan, has now been living under the Americans and their pupper German government for 60 years!

 

Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
Germany, like Japan, has now been living under the Americans and their pupper German government for 60 years!


That's what the Bader Meinhof gang contended.
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
That's what the Bader Meinhof gang contended.


Yeah, what ever happened to them anyway?
Reply #40 from PolMach Forums Top
The lefty press cheers on communists leaders like Castro and Chavez.


You mean the point out parts of things that Repubs would rather ignore.
Reply #41 from PolMach Forums Top
hey went bankrupt cause no one would listen to them and could not get ad money to fund their hate speech.


While completely ignoring the fact that the rightwing corporations have so effectively locked up a monopoly its virtually impossible to launch ANY new competing syndicate regardless of the type.

In full truth part of the problem is the audience. Democrats are willing to listen to both sides of the issue, thus even faux gets an audience. Republicans are the ones incapable of hearing anything other than what they want to hear.
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
In full truth part of the problem is the audience. Democrats are willing to listen to both sides of the issue, thus even faux gets an audience. Republicans are the ones incapable of hearing anything other than what they want to hear.


This is why you slander republicans without answering any of their questions? You are a perfect example of how it is just the other way around.
Reply #43 from PolMach Forums Top
This is why you slander republicans without answering any of their questions?


I haven't slandered anyone, but you have never seen reason to let facts interfere with your delusions.
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
I haven't slandered anyone, but you have never seen reason to let facts interfere with your delusions.


Probably not, but the average fifteen year old is much more capable of independent thought than the average conservative.


Liar
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
Prove otherwise. Put up or shut up Dr. Iwishiwasaguy


Probably not, but the average fifteen year old is much more capable of independent thought than the average conservative.


Liar
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
In full truth part of the problem is the audience.


I agree with you here. It is the audience that was the problem for Air America. They would not listen to the shows. Advertisement money is based on the share of the audience. No big numbers no big pay checks. Rush Limbaugh has 20 million people a week listen to his show. He gets big bucks for his broadcasts. Air America gets 5 thousand people a month listening to the show. No one in their right mind will spend money to advertise on that network. From the start they had to pay the radio stations to put them on the air.

At the same time they mismanaged their operating funds paying people like Al Franken 3 million dollars a year to spew hate which turned people off. When the checks bounced he walked away. If he believed in his cause and wanted the network to succeed he would have taken less pay at the start. But the greedy liberal he is he took the money and ran just like all the other talent they hired. They promised their employees health care but could not deliver because there was no money coming in. unlike the liberals in the government they could not demand more money to pay the people or provide health care. They lived off the millions given them by other rich liberals until they said enough.

What is great about Air America is that it proved the liberal way of running the country. They spend more than they take in and demand more money. When they can’t get more money they raise taxes so they can spend more money to help the poor. They don’t understand that they are creating more poor people by raising taxes.
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
I accept your admission that you can't prove me wrong.


I have proven you wrong and posted your hate on another thread. You do that nicely by playing this game. Prove me wrong.
Reply #50 from PolMach Forums Top
I have proven you wrong


Keep telling yourself that, eventually you may eventually convince yourself. Nobody of value will believe you though.