Finally , good news from Baghdad

[smelter]

^ Exactly. The purpose of the Surge was to reduce violence in Iraq until it was no longer Bush's problem. Whoever the new President is, serious questions need to be answered about the US's future in Iraq.

Not only do I not hear the answers, I don't even hear the QUESTIONS being asked.

I would like to hear more from Hillary and Barack on this before I cast my vote ......

For McCain and Huckabee, the answers are already out there. With McCain, we stay for 100 more years, with Huckabee, we begin the final Crusades.

 

[Spensed]

the fact that neither is recognizing the success of the surge makes me wonder about their plan for exit

if they cannot see/admit success then ............

well u know

i think about it plenty spensed - not to worry but thanks

and i would suggest that the lack of coverage about good things in iraq does in fact influence popular opinion

an example of the tail wagging the dog

Obviously, if you load places with soldiers, it's going to have some effect.

The issue is whether whatever "success" there is is sustainable and whether the "success" is real or just spin, another one of those we've-caught-the-second-most-important-terrorist for the umpteenth time. It's much too soon to call.

Plus the stated aim of the surge was political progress, which hasn't exactly been remarkable to say the least. And, even in terms of deaths and injuries, etc., all that's happened is that the figures are back to what they were before the surge. So what's been achieved?

Obviously, it would be great if the surge did work. But, in an up and down situation, a couple of good news items are just that.

But, hey great. If the surge is working, it means we can get out even quicker, which is what Hillary and Obama both want to do.

 

[unclaimedblessing]

My, the subject has changed from good news in Baghdad to good news in Iraq.
Due to the surge, Baghdad is innumdated with American troops. Of course that will slow things down. Will we be "surging" additional troops to other parts of the country too?
Our surges in Iraq also meant that many of the troops and equipment from Louisiana and Mississippi were there when Katrina struck and weren't able to help here in their home states.
The news from Iraq (and Baghdad) can gravitate from good to bad and back on a daily or even hourly basis.
Patriotism isn't an American phenomenon. How many really think that having an unpopular foreign force occupying your country is the basis of continuing good news?

 

[chance1]

Obviously, if you load places with soldiers, it's going to have some effect.

The issue is whether whatever "success" there is is sustainable and whether the "success" is real or just spin, another one of those we've-caught-the-second-most-important-terrorist for the umpteenth time. It's much too soon to call.

Plus the stated aim of the surge was political progress, which hasn't exactly been remarkable to say the least. And, even in terms of deaths and injuries, etc., all that's happened is that the figures are back to what they were before the surge. So what's been achieved?

Obviously, it would be great if the surge did work. But, in an up and down situation, a couple of good news items are just that.

But, hey great. If the surge is working, it means we can get out even quicker, which is what Hillary and Obama both want to do.

really

soldiers = success

i see

seems to me that it's too soon for u - cuz it is working - wouldn't be too soon if it wasn't

not sure the stated aim was political progress - as in the sole aim

but i agree - lots of work to be done there

it's safer there
people's lives r more normal

that's good

hope we can agree on that

i guess my point is that it seems that so much is invested in defeat that any good news is dismissed so easily

and i think that's wrong

here u on the political progress - or lack thereof

but the need for bad news vs. good - disturbs me

in general - not just with u

this is good news

really good news

suggesting otherwise is not fair, not accurate and politically motivated

IMO

 

[smelter]

^ the bar used to measure success of the surge has been lowered so often, we can't even limbo under it anymore. Our military has done the job assigned to them, the Iraq politicians haven't even begun theirs ......

pretty simple stuff

 

[Spensed]

seems to me that it's too soon for u - cuz it is working - wouldn't be too soon if it wasn't

Funny that's what I see folk like you doing the other way round.

it's safer there
people's lives r more normal

that's good

hope we can agree on that

Yes it's better and safer where the troops are or where various encouraging tribal agreements have been reached, but try taking a taxi from the airport or going outside the Green Zone. Americans and Iraqi's continue to be killed by the dozens, political progress is woefully slow to non-existent and as is any progress on rebuilding the infrastructure or utilities. If you think that's normal, you have a low level definition of normal.

i guess my point is that it seems that so much is invested in defeat that any good news is dismissed so easily

and i think that's wrong

here u on the political progress - or lack thereof

but the need for bad news vs. good - disturbs me

in general - not just with u

this is good news

really good news

suggesting otherwise is not fair, not accurate and politically motivated

IMO

No one's dismissing any good news. They're just putting it into a context of the ups and downs of war, the issues of sustainability, the questions about whether it's just more spin, etc.

All of that make it a tad to soon to play Pollyanna.

But hey bring on the good news. As I said, it means either Obama or Hillary will be able to get us out that much earlier.

 

[AsianDream]

I am very pleased to see that someone has taken the time to post good news on the Iraq war for a change.
I hope that this news helps the many relatives of troops from all nations involved in Iraq and that the situation improves to the point that Iraq can control it's own security problems.

IRAQ could have "controlled its own security" years ago if the USA had either not dismantled the existing armed forces (who had no love of Saddam) or had put in place enough troops to occupy the country effectively. A conservative estimate would be that at least there times the number of US troops than were actually deployed would be needed to control the country.

Looking at this in WWII terms - no Allied commanders then would ever dream of controlling a large country with 100,000 troops - the starting point would have been about half a million - most prudent planning would have used over a million.

A few million troops here or there sound a lot - but are quite small numbers in terms of major wars.

Weapons technology can win wars very well - but are almost irrelevant to long term occupation.

Shame Bush and the Republicans never took time to watch the History Channel

 

[scottish1]

Yes AsianDream I agree but we are all smarter with hindsight.
The U.S.A. did occupy Japan but was smart enough to leave the god Emperor on his throne much to the dismay of many. I don't think you can compare Saddam to Hirohito. Anyway it's about time the political leaders of Iraq pulled their fingers out and keep their side of the bargain.