Wait a minute -- you're saying the purpose of the surge was just to reduce the violence to the level it was a few years ago? I thought Bush said that the surge was so that Iraq could take over, and there is no sign that is happening.

It's a sad state when we call a victory something that is nothing more than reducing the unacceptable amounts to earlier unacceptable amounts.

But then, what do we expect? Has the Bush Administration gotten one thing right about Iraq? We were going to be greated as liberators and given flowers; it would be over in a few weeks; the oil would pay for the war; we'd find WMD; the surge would allow Iraq government to take over so we could leave .... I could go on, but why are we still trusting this government when they lied to get us into this war and have been wrong about it 100% of the time?

Well, they haven't lied about the surge and it working. How do you expect the government to progress at all without a significant reduction in violence and general destruction? I like how liberals tend to discount a genuine success in Iraq, a reduction in deaths and pooh-pooh it as not a "victory". I know that if Bush said it was sunny outside you would say it is gloomy, but could you give the administration some credit when things do work?

Nice of you to change the goal posts.

Has anyone noticed that the Democratic campaigners aren't really talking about the war anymore? I think there is a reason for that.

That's the military purpose of the surge, not the politically spun purpose.

Not a particularly sad definition -- "it is what it is", as some would say. The execution of office foreign policy is a fairly sober affair -- the main difference between the Iraq farce and, say, Korea, is the sheer quantity of deception and incompetence involved. Every time Bush thinks of Truman, God kills a kitten. Looking from a certain perspective, there is nothing inherently wrong with nation-building. In fact, some of America's greatest triumphs were "imperialist" missions in Korea, Japan, and Europe.

Hate me all you want. =)

You do realize that Nixon served as President from 1969 onwards and many of those deaths were under his watch.

http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html

Buchanan was the worst President of the 19th Century.

That is BS. Bush constantly pushed for action against Iraq, before 9/11. It was pretty obvious for anyone paying attention.

Not to mention that Nixon was the one that instigated the incursions into Cambodia to destroy the "Ho Chi Minh Trail."

Yeah, changing the goal posts after you say you're going to do something is completely wrong and a sleazy way to do things.

Let's see. What was the original purpose of the surge? Oh yeah, I remember, because Bush told us: The purpose of the surge was to provide the “breathing space” for political reconciliation to occur. A series of benchmarks were set, and the surge would allow for them to met. No problem!

The Iraqi government has only met three of the 18 benchmarks. There is no sign they are close to meeting any others.

Bush said "reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible." So the purpose of reducing the violence was specifically to accomplish this goal. Bush made it very clear in his TV announcement on January 10, 2007. Go ahead, look it up.

Now the Republicans are claiming the surge is working solely because the violence is down. That wasn't the reason they gave for the surge a year ago.

So, yes, I agree. Changing the goalposts is indeed quite dishonest ... but I guess that's to be expected from the nation's Liar-in-Chief.

Who's changing the goalposts?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_t ... ge_of_2007

How many of those goals have been met?

Wow, did you really just say something THAT blatantly hypocritical?

Would you like to go back to what the original reasons Bush gave for the war were and what he described as "success"? Holy cow.

Bush, but not most Republicans, and certainly not the Republican electorate, who were more concerned with taxcuts than a random country most of them couldn't pinpoint on a map. The "vast right wing conspiracy" is BS -- the conspiracy wasn't vast, and it would never have taken off without 9/11 (a controversial event, but I won't digress).

About half-and-half. As a third of Nixon's civilian kills were in Cambodia and Laos, the result of which triggered the Khmer Rouge victory, Nixon's indirect legacy could be claimed as much worse. Basically, we have two extremely bloody presidents.

The two events are independent on a practical basis. Lying to get into a war does not change the present circumstances in which we find ourselves.

Could we have a moratorium on your use of the word "hypocritical"? You use it so much that it has lost all meaning [insert "but you are a hypocrite" here]. In this situation, I fail to see how I am being a hypocrite. Illogical, maybe, but not hypocritical.

As to the prior posts, in order for them [the goals] to occur, you have to have a reduction in violence, which is occurring. Hopefully the other goals are met -- and soon.

Because you just accused someone of moving the goal posts even while defending a president who has constantly and consistently moved the goal posts on what he means by success in Iraq. This is a fairly easy one to trace. The original reasons and goals were plainly outlined and have devolved to the point where "less killing than a month ago" is defined as success.

You yourself defined "victory" in Iraq as "stability" and "less violence." You think that was how you or anyone else defined it before we invaded? Not even close. To say that the promises were much loftier would be an understatement. Democracy was to fall like dominoes in the WHOLE REGION. Republicans have gone from that to breaking out the champaign glasses when the violence goes down slightly for the month.

And you have the nerve to accuse someone of moving the goal posts?!

OK, then we agree -- the surge is not working yet. Don't go claiming it is a success when only a small part of it has been a success.

That's like saying "my car is working! True, the engine won't start, but I've been able to get the turn signal going!"

The surge did exactly what it is practically meant to do, stripped of political commentary.

It's Bush's wet dream of the surge's political repercussions that have gone nowhere.

That's not to mention the fact that there has been no event or moment during the entire war at which Republicans were NOT claiming victory or success. The post-escalation is no different.

But they certainly presented this wet dream as a realistic goal and possibility of the surge. Many of us at the time thought it was unreachable, but the point remains: They set the perameters for what a success would be, and now have changed the rules (moving the goalposts). I can't see how you can disagree with that.

That's the goal post, no?

I'm not disagreeing. The parameters are wholly irrelevant to the military operation. It's like saying a taxcut would help your flower bed bloom.

I will agree that the military part of the surge has been successful based on the military's goal of bringing the violence back down. But the military part was only a part -- and that's why I get upset when I hear Republicans ignoring the other 85% and claiming wrongly once more "Mission Accomplished"

Present company excepted.

What really depresses me is the sheer incompetence of the reconstruction effort. When there is an occupation, there needs to be a Marshall Plan to go with it. Iraq is still without reliable utilities in many locales. If anything, by this point American engineers should have already rebuilt the country's infrastructure to better than pre-invasion quality. Expensive? Yes. But if you're going to get married, you have to be willing to pay for the children.

I assure you, if material conditions were up to par, there would not be a functional insurgency in Iraq today. These hate us because we're there, not because of some deep-seated ideological struggle. There was no organized crime in Iraq prior to the invasion, Baathists excepted.

That 'small part' is a part that was considered almost impossible.

I understand what you are saying, and I get how idiotic it sounds to proclaim that violence levels are down to where they were 3 years ago! Yay! But the fact of the matter is, none of the other objectives are at ALL obtainable without the present success.

The surge IS working, to a point. Has it fully manifested itself in the way Bush laid out? No, but there is still time, and it is a step in the right direction.

The problem with stating the surge worked even militarily is that most of the factions that are fighting in Iraq have called a cease fire while the surge was in place. Muqtada al-Sadr called for a cease-fire until the end of the surge. What will happen when the troops that were part of the escalation return home? Will violence still be down?

If you are planning to rob a bank, you wait until the guards from the day shift go home, so you only have to deal with the night shift.

It is like evaluating a stimulus package when all the money has been spent. It might look good at the moment, but you only know if it actually worked 6-12 months after the money has been spent.

Can't get into arguing that kind of logic.

Might as well start arguing which came first, the chicken or the egg.

And you measure that how exactly? We are exhausting our troop reserves and throwing hundreds of billions into a bottomless hole. At what point do you draw the line and say enough is enough? Never?

Meanwhile,

Last year, about 2,100 soldiers injured themselves or attempted suicide, compared with about 350 in 2002, according to the U.S. Army Medical Command Suicide Prevention Action Plan.

The Army was unprepared for the high number of suicides and cases of post-traumatic stress disorder among its troops, as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have continued far longer than anticipated. Many Army posts still do not offer enough individual counseling and some soldiers suffering psychological problems complain that they are stigmatized by commanders. Over the past year, four high-level commissions have recommended reforms and Congress has given the military hundreds of millions of dollars to improve its mental health care, but critics charge that significant progress has not been made.

The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have placed severe stress on the Army, caused in part by repeated and lengthened deployments. Historically, suicide rates tend to decrease when soldiers are in conflicts overseas, but that trend has reversed in recent years. From a suicide rate of 9.8 per 100,000 active-duty soldiers in 2001 -- the lowest rate on record -- the Army reached an all-time high of 17.5 suicides per 100,000 active-duty soldiers in 2006.