Surging Toward Disaster in Iraq

Frederick Kagan, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute whose report "Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq" served as the basis of the new counterinsurgency strategy, gave a cautiously positive evaluation of the surge in his testimony before Lantos' committee.

"It is now beyond question that the Bush administration pursued a flawed approach to the war in Iraq from 2003 to 2007," Kagan said. But "to say that the current plan has failed is simply incorrect....Indications on the military side strongly suggest that success -- in the form of dramatically reduced violence by the end of this year -- is quite likely."

Kagan said it would be a "very grave error indeed to rush now to abandon the first strategy that offers some real prospect for success."

Kagan added that though President Bush announced his new strategy in January of this year, and reinforcement brigades began arriving in Iraq over the winter and spring, the operations that are designed to clear out insurgent activity in Baghdad have not yet begun in earnest.

Kagan testified that "a successful clear-and-hold operation...will probably begin in late July or early August within Baghdad itself." He said that operation will be the one to bring lasting security to Iraq's capital -- creating "the space for political progress that we all desire."

 

And DOR's need failure in Iraq. This constant drum beatin you libs are doing continues to give aid and comfort to the enemy. Good Job!:thumbs:

 

So what?

Can you refute his points?

 

Meaning you can't refute his points concerning the surge.

 

Kagan added that though President Bush announced his new strategy in January of this year, and reinforcement brigades began arriving in Iraq over the winter and spring, the operations that are designed to clear out insurgent activity in Baghdad have not yet begun in earnest.



Kagan's statement is a pure statement of fact. The truth is that anti war types do not want successful operations in Iraq.

The reason?

Political advantage. It's not about the war anymore. Just politics and validation. Since they predicted and wanted failure, they cannot allow the surge to succeed. Therefore, the best and surest way to succeed is not let it get started.

 

True.

Meanwhile you continue to post only bad news and predict failure. I believe you want it to fail.

From military.com:

"With both the American and Iraqi body counts climbing, and perhaps with an eye on the political climate in both Washington and Baghdad, the American military is looking for the necessary time to make the strategy work. “We are still positioning forces,” said Brigadier General Kevin Bergner today (the new MNFI spokesman who replaced MajGen William Caldwell). “The last brigade is only now arriving, and it takes 30-60 days after arrival for them to be comfortable with their Iraqi Army counterparts, as well as for the locals to accept them. We have a collective sense that the trends are better, and that the joint security stations and combat OP’s are effective.”

 

http://www.nypost.com/seven/0621200...ng_on_offense_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm


WINNING ON OFFENSE
REAL PLAN TO DEFEAT IRAQ FOES


By RALPH PETERS

EXCERPT

The second, enduring question is whether the Iraqis will finally knock off their squabbling and shoulder their share of the burden. Petraeus is giving us a lesson in skillful generalship, employing U.S. troops where he must, Iraqis where he can. But, in the end, we can't win this unless the Iraqis win it for themselves. Pious statements about "brave Iraqis" only get us so far: We're still only buying time - and no one can pretend that time isn't running out.

Which brings us to the home front, where the war just might be lost, no matter what progress we make on the ground.

Political hucksterism and poll-pandering on Capitol Hill amount to stabbing our troops in the back. Period. The insistence that success or failure will be determined beyond doubt by September is pure political quackery.