The Surge Succeeds

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The insurgency in it's last throes again? We've been there a couple of years ago, haven't we? Or Mission Accomplished again? No wait, that was back in 2003. Or are we finally collecting them flowers?

I think you just want to see Bush imbarrased. I don't think you really care at all about our national security. For the third time. The "mission Accomplished" sign was about THAT SHIPS JOB IN THE WAR. That job was to KICK OUT SADDAM. We did that. That mission was ACCOMPLISHED! Jeez ET, get your head out of your azz.

Jeez, Gary, seems to me that you have your head where it doesn't belong. Let me quote from the White House's web-site:

President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended

Remarks by the President from the USS Abraham Lincoln

At Sea Off the Coast of San Diego, California

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.

...

In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty, and for the peace of the world. Our nation and our coalition are proud of this accomplishment --

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0030501-15.html

There's been more major combat since that speech than there was prior to it. You can try and twist this all you want but the fact of the matter is that they tried to sell this war as won on May 1, 2003. Since, it has raged on longer than WWII and the engagement has been stepped up rather than stepped down - which is what one should expect following the end of major combat as announced by the "commander guy".

Doesn't take me to see Bush embarrassed. He's doing a pretty good job all by himself of embarrassing himself and the nation he presides over.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Agreed. Suggesting that it is somehow a ‘different war’ is frankly ridiculous.

Moreover, considering that at the time that speech was made – Saddam was still at large, so the statements seemed rather presumptuous; but not really unpredictable. From the administration’s POV there was a need for some sort of symbolic gesture to suggest that this had come to a ‘quick and decisive’ end to match up with the pre-war rhetoric – which is why I said it was political grandstanding. On that point its hard to believe though that the politicians and planners didn’t consider the long-term consequences that would follow (the more likely scenario IMO is that they simply didn’t care – considering their plan to be worth the long term stability problems that it would create – and the long term deployment of the US military)

Before we get too derailed on that point (although probably already too late however) I pointed the ‘victory’ speech because in some ways its not too dissimilar to the OP editorial. Both are rhetorically rather than factually based, so broad statements that a particular strategy is or isn’t working would seem premature without any substantive information to validate them.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Sounds like waffling on the issue to me...

Snow Falsely Claims That Bush Said ‘Just The Opposite’ Of ‘Mission Accomplished’

In today’s press briefing, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow tried to distance President Bush from his infamous “Mission Accomplished” speech, claiming that Bush said “just the opposite” of “Mission Accomplished”:

I think the public ought to just listen to what the president has to say. You know that the mission accomplished banner was put up by members of the USS Abraham Lincoln, and the president, on that very speech, said just the opposite, didn’t he?

For that May 1, 2003, Bush stood in front of a large banner that read, “Mission Accomplished.” In the opening of his speech, he declared, “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.” He called the “battle of Iraq” a “victory.” In his radio address shortly after the speech, he boasted, “I delivered good news to the men and women who fought in the cause of freedom: their mission is complete and major combat operations in Iraq have ended.”

Additionally, as Bob Woodward reported in October, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had to pressure the White House to take out of the speech the actual phrase “Mission Accomplished,” but he couldn’t “get the sign down.”

In Oct. 2003, then-White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan admitted that the White House — not members of USS Lincoln — had “take[n] care of the production of the banner.”

Full transcript below:

QUESTION: Tony, this goes to your previous acknowledgment that the president is aware of public anxiety about the situation in Iraq.

What would your guidance be to a public that has seen the president stand under a mission accomplished banner, proclaim an end to major combat operations, a vice president talking about the last throes? How should the public go into viewing this speech tomorrow?

SNOW: I think the public ought to just listen to what the president has to say.

You know that the mission accomplished banner was put up by members of the USS Abraham Lincoln, and the president, on that very speech, said just the opposite, didn’t he?

He said it was the end of major combat operations, but he did not say it was the end of operations. Instead, he cautioned people at the time that there would be considerable continued violence in Iraq and that there would be continued operations for a long period of time.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/09/snow-m...n-accomplished/

...if you click on the link, you'll find the references.

[SteveLaura 0]

Gary - there's a difference between high-sounding rhetoric and actual demonstrable results. So far we've had plenty of the former (via elected officials - not least the President) and precious little of the latter.

You know full well what the sign meant but you and others still hang onto it like it's some sort of a battle cry. Very shallow indeed.

Why do I get the feeling that if it were Hillary who had made that speech with that banner, that certain people here would download a mocking jpeg and put it in their signature..?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Gary - there's a difference between high-sounding rhetoric and actual demonstrable results. So far we've had plenty of the former (via elected officials - not least the President) and precious little of the latter.

You know full well what the sign meant but you and others still hang onto it like it's some sort of a battle cry. Very shallow indeed.

Why do I get the feeling that if it were Hillary who had made that speech with that banner, that certain people here would download a mocking jpeg and put it in their signature..?

Zing!

[John & Annie 1]

And Bill Clinton never politically grandstanded.

They all do, democrat or republican, its what they do. Get over it.

As for the different war thing, there is a big difference between fighting trained warriors and rag tag bunch of religious zealots who would rather chop your head off and use civilians as shields.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And Bill Clinton never politically grandstanded.

They all do, democrat or republican, its what they do. Get over it.

As for the different war thing, there is a big difference between fighting trained warriors and rag tag bunch of religious zealots who would rather chop your head off and use civilians as shields.

I don't think that has been doubted - though again I'm not sure we should be relativising this ongoing issue with the actions of ex-public officials.

And again - its not a 'different war' regardless of whoever is being fought. Its the same theatre of operations and there has been no gap between hostilities.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

The only evidence of 'success' at this point is General Petraeus' interim report. As the final report is not due until September isn't it presumptuous to declare victory before the effects of the new policy can be adequately measured?

I mean... isn't that what GWB did from the deck of that aircraft carrier 3-4 years ago...?

You guys like to bring that up alot when you don't have anything else to say. That sign "mission successful" was about the mission of that ship and it's role in defeating Saddam.

As for the rest, the editorial cites many clues that the surge is succeding. Read them again and tell me if he isn't telling the truth.

gary, don't you know by now you can't win with the "glass half empty" crowd?

Gary, they (glass half empty crowd) are fully invested in DEFEAT! Things are starting to look up. Whats very sad is the Darfor crowd wants us to help them but when it comes to these bastages blowin-up mass innocent bystanders in Iraq all they can say is "RUN"

Edited July 25, 2007 by CarolsMarc

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The only evidence of 'success' at this point is General Petraeus' interim report. As the final report is not due until September isn't it presumptuous to declare victory before the effects of the new policy can be adequately measured?

I mean... isn't that what GWB did from the deck of that aircraft carrier 3-4 years ago...?

You guys like to bring that up alot when you don't have anything else to say. That sign "mission successful" was about the mission of that ship and it's role in defeating Saddam.

As for the rest, the editorial cites many clues that the surge is succeding. Read them again and tell me if he isn't telling the truth.

gary, don't you know by now you can't win with the "glass half empty" crowd?

Gary, they (glass half empty crowd) are fully invested in DEFEAT! Things are starting to look up.

I think its simply a question of putting actual substantive evidence ahead of unsubstantiated wish fulfilment - especially when we're talking about validating the policies of an administration that doesn't exactly have a track record of success in these things. I very much doubt that people actually want the US to fail. I certainly don't.

[John & Annie 1]

And Bill Clinton never politically grandstanded.

They all do, democrat or republican, its what they do. Get over it.

As for the different war thing, there is a big difference between fighting trained warriors and rag tag bunch of religious zealots who would rather chop your head off and use civilians as shields.

I don't think that has been doubted - though again I'm not sure we should be relativising this ongoing issue with the actions of ex-public officials.

And again - its not a 'different war' regardless of whoever is being fought. Its the same theatre of operations and there has been no gap between hostilities.

It just seemed that you were making a big deal about the President grandstanding and I wanted to point out that they all do, so if it is relevant to the current President. Then we should be able to look at the precedent.

We are in disagreement, I think that there is a difference and that you can fight two wars in the same theatre; granted, they do seem seamless. Fundamentally, they are fighting for different reasons. The first group was fighting for the dictator out of loyalty and fear. The second group is fighting for religious reasons.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And Bill Clinton never politically grandstanded.

They all do, democrat or republican, its what they do. Get over it.

As for the different war thing, there is a big difference between fighting trained warriors and rag tag bunch of religious zealots who would rather chop your head off and use civilians as shields.

I don't think that has been doubted - though again I'm not sure we should be relativising this ongoing issue with the actions of ex-public officials.

And again - its not a 'different war' regardless of whoever is being fought. Its the same theatre of operations and there has been no gap between hostilities.

It just seemed that you were making a big deal about the President grandstanding and I wanted to point out that they all do, so if it is relevant to the current President. Then we should be able to look at the precedent.

We are in disagreement, I think that there is a difference and that you can fight two wars in the same theatre; granted, they do seem seamless. Fundamentally, they are fighting for different reasons. The first group was fighting for the dictator out of loyalty and fear. The second group is fighting for religious reasons.

I never denied that other politicians haven't grandstanded - just that as subsequent events showed (re: Iraq), feel-good rhetoric isn't particularly useful when assessing the success (or not) of a particular policy. That links directly with the OP post which references an editorial as proof that a troop swell is bringing demonstrable, long-term benefits to Iraq's security situation. I'm simply saying that a) its too early to tell (as Gary I think admitted earlier - the surge wasn't at full strength until this month), and secondly; the barometer of that success should surely lie with the military commanders - who are due to release a report on subsequent developments in September.

On the second point - I think you're playing semantics here. I mean, in WW2 the US and Europe fought against Germany, Italy and Japan - Was it a separate war just because we defeated the Italians and then went on to the Germans and Japanese? Or was it a single, overarching conflict?