digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

Iraq: " The surge is working" ? Not quite.

reuters.com — By Andrew Gray BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The new U.S. military commander in Iraq must find ways to keep improving security while American troop levels are falling, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Monday as two Baghdad bombings underlined the scale...

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Unitftbll, on 09/15/2008, -23/+33Yep - the Surge worked, ask John McCain.
    • Nitesmoke, on 09/16/2008, -14/+33"The surge succeeded beyond our wildest dreams..." --Barack Obama 9/10/08
      • fleischner, on 09/16/2008, -19/+33"The surge didn't help." --Barack Obama the next day
        "The surge worked great." --Barack Obama the day after that
        "The surge was a failure." --Barack Obama that night
        "The surge seems to have been successful." --Barack Obama the next morning
        "The surge was another illegal action by the Bush administration." --Barack Obama just before brunch
        "The surge as I've always said was the right thing to do." --Barack Obama while working out at the gym
        "The surge didn't help." --Barack Obama, to nobody in particular, just before bedtime
      • hipnerd, on 09/16/2008, -12/+18Context is everything. He then pointed out that the political reconciliation and progress that the surge was supposed to facilitate has not happened, so the long term prognosis is not good.

        That's a well-reasoned analysis that has more depth than your single-sentence quote would lead people to believe.
      • IKORKYI, on 09/16/2008, -10/+11The surge did succeed beyond our wildest dreams - it wasn't a catastrophe!!!!
      • undeadwarrior, on 09/16/2008, -9/+14He said the surge succeeded. I saw the entire interview in it's full context. He said "No one could have foreseen that it would suceed." Except one person did, John McCain. So instead of allowing John McCain to be right on this one, Diggers will just rearrange the facts and say the surge is a failure. Better to fail as a nation than for a democrat to be wrong about something and a republican be right, huh, Digg?
      • crowbar77, on 09/16/2008, -6/+8@undeadwarrior

        In terms of long term effect the surge won't matter, it's a religious war between the sunni's and the Shia'tes the US should just have let play out. Besides, even if McCain was right about this he still voted for the damn war in the first place.
      • crowbar77, on 09/16/2008, -4/+6Digg me down but the fact is the moment the US begins withdrawing the violence will escalate again.

        In June 2008, the U.S. Department of Defense reported that "the security, political and economic trends in Iraq continue to be positive; however, they remain fragile, reversible and uneven."[28]

        In July 2008, the audit arm of the U.S. Congress recommended that the U.S. Government should "develop an updated strategy for Iraq that defines U.S. goals and objectives after July 2008 and addresses the long-term goal of achieving an Iraq that can govern, defend, and sustain itself".[29]

        Steven Simon, a Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote in May 2008 that "the recent short-term gains" had "come at the expense of the long-term goal of a stable, unitary Iraq."

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war_in_Iraq
      • boot20, on 09/16/2008, -5/+7The Surge worked, but at a huge cost to the stability in Afghanistan. Not to mention the Surge will only work as long as we keep paying the terrorists to NOT attack us, the second we stop, it's all back on again.

        So, no The Surge did not work, it was the illusion of stability and control in Iraq.
    • IKORKYI, on 09/16/2008, -6/+13And the economy is doing great!
      • gnocchi1442, on 09/17/2008, -0/+1The fundamental(ists) are strong!
    • briguymaine, on 09/16/2008, -3/+11FTA: "Despite an increase in deadly attacks in the past few days, overall levels of violence in Iraq are at four-year lows."

      Seems like it's working
      • Nitesmoke, on 09/16/2008, -6/+8But we Diggers had a lot invested in the surge failing! So, instead of admitting that, just this once, we were wrong, we'll just say that it isn't working so we don't have to adjust our world view.
      • altgeeky1, on 09/16/2008, -5/+8..Seems like it's working

        How much of that is attributable to actually granting these militias a PARDON for killing US troops, AND paying them a monthly tribute?

        Go ahead and deny either of these things, they're both independently verified.
        I'd concede that both of these things were probably necessary to allow for an exit strategy, because conceding that is HONEST. It may not fit on a bumper sticker. ***** it.

        Pinning 100% of the reduction in violence on the troop surge makes for great bumper sticker spin, but it's part of the neo-con mindset that shows contempt for the facts and the troops themselves.
    • homercles337, on 09/16/2008, -4/+4Yep, surge worked...uh...yea.

      http://www.236.com/video/2008/get_your_war_on_the_ ...
    • captainqtp, on 09/16/2008, -2/+1Talk about a misleading headline for this article. You people need to learn how to read.

      "Despite an increase in deadly attacks in the past few days, overall levels of violence in Iraq are at four-year lows."
  • leatherback, on 09/15/2008, -31/+38If you are a low information voter....the "surge" worked.

    If you are a high information voter....the "surge" hasn't worked.
    • dshPls, on 09/16/2008, -8/+21So Obama is a low information voter? We can debate the merits and justifications of the war, and I'd agree it was unnecessary, but just admit it, the surge had worked. I'm happy we're winning, even if it was a blunder.
      • NonLeftistDiggr, on 09/16/2008, -13/+3LOL... that's right! I forgot about that interview.... that's funny.
      • IphtashuFitz, on 09/16/2008, -6/+10During the same time of the "surge", millions were paid to people like Al Sadr, and it's also been reported that elite military units killed a number of important people in the insurgency. The surge was merely timed to coincide with these other events. So how can you tell if it's the surge, or the bribe money, or the assassinations, that ultimately resulted in the "success"?
      • Tenlow, on 09/16/2008, -5/+11The way I remember it, the surge had nothing to do with it. It was the 15 foot high wall they built separating the warring factions of Iraqis. Basically they figured it out themselves, at the same time of this "surge".

        I could be wrong.

        But we've got no right to be there anymore. If the mission was accomplished, we should be home. If Saddam was captured, we should be home. If the surge had worked, we should be home. The only way we can actually win this war is by leaving now and never going back. There's nobody to "win" against. This isn't WW2 and there won't be a treaty signing on a battleship. There's nobody to sign because we're fighting ideals, not armies. That's not a battle that can be won.
      • fluxion, on 09/16/2008, -3/+4he attributes most gains in the stability of the Iraqi government to other factors like the Anbar Awakening, and always consented that higher troop presence would lead to a reduction in violence, at least while that presence continued. the question was whether or not that increased presence would, in an of itself, allow the Iraqis to get their ***** together, or whether or not it would just turn into another money/life pit with Iraqis growing increasingly dependent on our presence.

        it was a fair question to raise.

        in retrospect i'd say it has been helpful, but the logic against it (and for it) initially still stands. from our standpoint, having little insight into the arrangements being made with the Iraqi leaders and their willingness to step it up, we're basically trying to take credit for calling heads or tails.
      • IKORKYI, on 09/16/2008, -4/+4The surge didn't work, Al Sadr stopped killing us.
      • heysuburbia, on 09/16/2008, -3/+11How does stopping 1 of the 5 problems considered a "success"?

        1. Reduced Violence - YES
        2. Stable Iraqi Government - NOPE
        3. Less Terrorists - NOPE
        4. USA seen as Liberators - NOPE
        5. Coming closer to "winning" the War - Not even close, we're going backwards

        OF ***** COURSE SENDING IN 1000's MORE TROOPS WILL PUSH BACK VIOLENCE, THAT'S NOT SUCCESS!
      • SpinningHead, on 09/16/2008, -3/+3The surge was a military action to accomplish military goals. In conjunction with the Sadr ceasefire and the Anbar awakening, it accomplished those military goals. It has done zero to further the political goals which are whats truly important.
    • NonLeftistDiggr, on 09/16/2008, -12/+9If significantly lower violence is a good thing... the "surge" worked

      If significantly higher violence is a good thing... the "surge" hasn't worked

      and of course, the political side is lacking, but they've been corrupt over there for 1,000's of years, so it should be expected.
    • pintomp3, on 09/16/2008, -6/+15If you are a low information voter....drill, baby, drill.
      • brsecu, on 09/16/2008, -4/+3dug because it was funny. Not because i agree.
    • seomike, on 09/16/2008, -9/+8Low information Obama has been forced to admit it worked. He's been saying it worked on the campaign trail...
      • timbellomo, on 09/16/2008, -8/+5"Succeeded beyond our wildest dreams" =/= "Worked"*

        For it to have "worked," we'd have to have a self-sustaining Iraq. We're a long way off of that... anything we manage to accomplish there will be overthrown as soon as we leave, no matter how long we stay. It's inevitable...
      • oldhick, on 09/16/2008, -3/+8@timbellomo you speak as if there is some mutually agreed on point to the surge. My understanding was that the surge was aimed at reducing violence, which it has.
        You're speaking as if the surge was the final solution to the entire problem...
      • Nitesmoke, on 09/16/2008, -3/+4timbellomo is saying what will have to happen before dems will admit that it worked. Until Iraq's major exports are puppies and rainbows and the only thing getting blown is the Prime Minister, they won't admit *****.
    • DulcetTone, on 09/16/2008, -1/+4Hardly. What is offered to show that the few recent tragic bombings are anything other than isolated reversals? Only a biased interpreter of the last 6 months could choose to take a handful of failures and amplify them to something that genuinely challenges the clear trend of improvement they disrupt.

      The surge's success was achieved by terminating a regular progression of such attacks, and by capturing or killing those responsible for them. I hope the same can happen here.
    • Smurph0404, on 09/16/2008, -5/+9Typical snobby liberal. If you're a 'high information voter' you are a liberal, and if you are a 'low information voter' you are not. Of course there is no possible way that someone could have access to the information you have access to and still disagree with you. Oh those poor illiterate people who don't have access to mainstream news providers like you. The millions of people who disagree with you are all obviously too 'low information' to make the correct decision and it is up to you to save them. This is the attitude that lost the Democrats the 2004 election.
      • SpinningHead, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1And I thought it was the demonization of intellectuals and people with critical thinking skills as "elitist" that won the republicans the wonderful 8yrs we have all been witness to. When I hear people say theyre voting for Obama because he is cute, Ill call them out on it. Meanwhile, I hear tons of people supporting Palin because shes "just like us". By that logic I should support the candidate who likes beer and video games.
  • treehugger87, on 09/15/2008, -27/+42The surge worked, we are winning the war in Iraq, Sadaam Hussein masterminded the September 11th attacks, soon we will have defeated evil for good.

    Oops, I must have been daydreaming at work again. Back to reality...
    • Pebcak, on 09/16/2008, -3/+13..and they hate us for our freedoms!
    • mistertrogdor, on 09/16/2008, -2/+12Did we ever find those imaginary mobile chemical weapons facilities?
      • ulmedas, on 09/16/2008, -1/+8No, Billy O. told me that they were buried in the desert at the last minute and that he saw them himself on google earth. Well, if papa bear says so, that's close enough to truth for me.
    • starkruzr, on 09/16/2008, -1/+1In b4 someone calls you a terrorist lover.
  • RileyCourage, on 09/15/2008, -7/+49Obama to Bill O’Reilly: “I’ve already said it’s (the surge) succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.”
    McCain to everyone, all the time: The surge worked and I was (virtually) the only one who supported it.
    The fact that the surge has worked and HELPED the situation in Iraq is hardly debatable. Is there still a lot of work to do? Of course. Are things fragile? Of course.
    • WarPirate, on 09/16/2008, -4/+5Agreed.

      Two things... First, McCain wasnt the only one to support it he was however probably one of the few who never changed his opinion.

      Second, The press has had to pull that out of Obama the very few times he has admitted it which are probably less then 5 on record. Bill had to really pin him down to get him to admit it. And even then he got all flustered about it.
    • Taiyoryu, on 09/16/2008, -2/+2What is debatable (and most likely unanswerable) is how much the surge actually contributed to a decrease in violence. If the surge worked to the extent some people imply, things would not be fragile.
    • OliveStreet, on 09/16/2008, -4/+4RileyCourage: You're wrong, but keep watch FOXNews. Any reduction in violence in Iraq has nothing to do with troop levels and the so called "Surge." It's because your tax dollars and my tax dollars and everyone's tax dollars are being paid to the various warring factions in Iraq. Stop paying off the warlords and let's see how well the surge is doing then.
    • StGhurka, on 09/16/2008, -2/+2Hardly debatable? WTF is this whole thread about?

      It worked brilliantly, but some people can't admit it because they staked out their position and are afraid that changing their minds costs them credibility.

      They're letting their politics dictate their thinking, rather than the other way around.
  • Pitofdoom, on 09/15/2008, -9/+17The surge has put the ball squarely in Iraq's hands !
    Iraqi's must now (show) decide if Iraq survives for Iraq or Evil !
    • worldchanger, on 09/16/2008, -0/+3you can make any situation seem sexual if you use the words "ball" and "hands" in the same sentence.
  • ThinkOutTheBox, on 09/15/2008, -3/+16Despite what you think the surge has worked. Might have not worked in the way they wanted it to or not saying the methods in which they used to make the surge succeed were the right methods to where it "worked" to everybody's appeasement, but non the less it worked.

    It is kind of hard to fight people that believe dieing is better than living.
    • eviltandem, on 09/16/2008, -6/+7"Might have not worked in the way they wanted it to"

      Isn't that another way of saying, "It didn't work?"

      "It is kind of hard to fight people that believe dieing is better than living. "

      Welcome to reality. We are glad to have you here finally. We knew going into it that this would be the problem.

      The whole mess started when they blew themselves up to take out the twin towers. It just now occurs to you that it's hard to defeat people that are willing to sacrifice themselves "for the cause", or that these people were going to be doing this?

      Duh.

      If you keep down this track of balanced thinking and objective assessments of the world around you - you run a very real danger of becoming a liberal.
      • Manther, on 09/16/2008, -2/+2"If you keep down this track of balanced thinking and objective assessments of the world around you - you run a very real danger of becoming a liberal."

        Wow, well put. I'd digg you up more if I could... The only change I'd make, so it's not quite as scary to those "conservatives" out there, is to say 'you run a very real danger of ditching the republican party' instead of 'becoming a liberal'. While it's true, their former republican pals would start calling them liberal and spitting in their face or what have you, they don't actually have to become liberal. There is a happy middle ground that republicans of the past (Abraham Lincoln) used to occupy, back before they were criminals. I'd bet if we could get a candidate from that area of the spectrum, we'd be in pretty good shape.
    • AndrewMoyer, on 09/16/2008, -6/+5I hate people that say "the surge worked". That's like saying, "gee, that dynamite sure unclogged my toilet."

      There is no success in war. There is no winning in war.

      War is the outcome of failure. War is losing.

      I'm ashamed of all of you that ever supported this illegal war in Iraq, and you should be ashamed too.
  • angeladtao, on 09/16/2008, -11/+26Of course, our government paying Iraqis not to kill our soldiers. How long can that go on?

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts235.html
    • fillbaxter, on 09/16/2008, -4/+6Dugg for lewrockwell.com and the dose of reality it usually delivers.
    • muckemuck, on 09/16/2008, -0/+14We aren't just paying them $800,000 per day not to kill our soldiers, we're paying them not to kill other Iraqis. We're paying them to not fight a civil war.

      You can't win an occupation.
      • pintomp3, on 09/16/2008, -2/+9"You can't win an occupation." this cannot be overemphasized.
      • DulcetTone, on 09/16/2008, -7/+2Japan. Germany.
      • Hoffpa, on 09/16/2008, -0/+0ha. Neg diggs

        HIDE TRUTH
      • Garmr, on 09/16/2008, -2/+6@DulcetTone:

        Yes, of course! Last time I was in Germany, I couldn't help but notice all those US military checkpoints. M1A1 tanks were driving through the streets, flanked by US Marines. Totally awesome, dude!
        Japan, last I heard, had a whole town napalmed when a rebellion were forming in the underground dissident circles. Delta Force was tasked with the clean up, which they did very effectively. Man, you gotta love those occupations!

        /sarcasm

        There's a difference between permanent military bases and keeping an entire country under military control. BTW, what's your definition of an occupation?
      • DulcetTone, on 09/16/2008, -3/+0Where you consolidate the end of hostilities where you vanquished the enemy forces. Often, it has political goals, which here are the creation and nurturing of a sustainable democratic form of government in the face of great challenges.

        There were oh so many mistakes along the way, and of course you can point to the fundamental issues of WMD and the rationale for undertaking this war and its nosebleed occupation. But if you're unwilling to accept the prospect of success, I really can't help you digest this costly and belated success.
  • dupswapdrop, on 09/16/2008, -6/+10Well we may have to kill them all to save them!
  • bdement, on 09/16/2008, -9/+23Buried for misleading title. The article doesn't mention anything about the surge or Iraqi's opinions of it
  • davidkeithjones, on 09/16/2008, -3/+4?" is all I got to say.
  • samblam, on 09/16/2008, -7/+22Taken directly from the article:

    "Despite an increase in deadly attacks in the past few days, overall levels of violence in Iraq are at four-year lows."

    Make up your own mind.
    • eviltandem, on 09/16/2008, -12/+11Still spending billions a month? Check.
      Still over 100,000 troops there? Check.
      Still killing our troops? Check.
      Government still a mess? Check.

      Looks like a roaring success to me. We should surge the national debt next! Then maybe we can surge the US government.

      A little surging of the financial markets right now might not be a bad idea. We could spend like $100 billion bailing out crooked financial institutions and call it a roaring success! The surge on financial markets is working! Just look at all the money we're spending and the complete lack of any actual changes!

      The surge is truly a marvel of the 21st century. It's amazing to me that humanity survived as long as it has without this amazing piece of technology.

      The power to spend unimaginable amounts of money and get nothing for it must be controlled. Wouldn't want our enemies to get their hands on this.
  • IAmTheGuy, on 09/16/2008, -7/+10All right. Going to set the record straight here. The surge came a little more than a year ago. It is undeniable that violence has decreased in Iraq. The only question is whether or not it is a cause/effect situation or a coincidence. About the same time as the surge, U.S. military officials started talking and cooperating with local tribal chiefs. This caused the decrease in violence, not the surge.

    Edit:
    Here's one story about it sso fewer people think I'm talking out of my ass.
    http://www.metimes.com/International/2007/12/04/us ...
    • gini1, on 09/16/2008, -1/+4It is a little difficult to say where effects of ethnic cleansing end and effects of this "surge" start. Killing usually ends when there is no one left to kill anymore...

      Shiite areas are pretty much cleared of Sunnis and vice versa. Those not killed are forced to leave their homes. There are over 4 million displaced Iraqis spread around middle east and the world. If you call that success, fine, make yourselves feel good about it. But don't expect the rest of the world believe it.
  • pintomp3, on 09/16/2008, -9/+8the point of the surge was to create breathing room for political reconciliation. that has not happened. the surge failed to meet 15 out of 18 benchmarks set by the administration. the administration later declared 12 of them "satisfactory". the surge helped bring down violence, but it has not "worked".

    besides, if the surge did indeed "work", why can't we leave?
    • dev0null, on 09/16/2008, -6/+4@pint: Just because the surge worked doesn't mean the entire war is done
      • pintomp3, on 09/16/2008, -2/+8it's not a war, it's an occupation.
      • eviltandem, on 09/16/2008, -0/+4So then what does "the surge worked" mean exactly?

        Because it looks to me like things are going back to the way they were before the surge.

        In other words, it made no difference.
    • pgiessel, on 09/16/2008, -3/+4From THE ARTICLE DESCRIPTION: "...while American troop levels are falling..." I would suggest to you that American troop levels falling = LEAVING.
      • pintomp3, on 09/16/2008, -1/+3they are still higher than pre-surge levels. the current levels are unsustainable even if they wanted to maintain them. how many soldiers are on their 4th and 5th tours? how many have been stop-lossed?
  • Lucas123, on 09/16/2008, -4/+3Iraq will either want Democracy and freedom or not. No one will be able to force it on them. If the people of Iraq back the new government, no number of suicide bombers can destroy it. When insurgents lose the backing of the populace, they'll have no where to hide, and no one to help them smuggle in the bombs.
    • mistertrogdor, on 09/16/2008, -2/+5I don't ever recall Iraq asking the US to come to their country to help spread democracy and freedom. Yet we still go there and 'force' it on them under the guise of liberation.
  • bpoteat, on 09/16/2008, -11/+7I suppose Reuters will now be listed with all the other non-Fox news agencies as a left-wing propaganda machine.
    • burkhartmj, on 09/16/2008, -4/+7no....because this article meantions absolutely nothing about the surge not working. Hell, near the end it points to the violence being at a 4 year low. Stop talking out of your ass and making assumptions based on some nut's Digg title.
  • hacknoid, on 09/16/2008, -13/+3The "Surge" worked - a.k.a: Mission Accomplished!
  • zacharytelschow, on 09/16/2008, -4/+8"...must find ways to keep improving security while American troop levels are falling..."

    Or the surge worked, thereby creating stability/security, and its difficult to maintain that same level of stability in conjuction with the new Iraq military while simultaneously reducing the number of US troops in the area. Or it could mean "the surge didn't quite work, and by that we mean failed." Take your pick.

    I'm very sick of hearing how "Democrats don't simplify arguments because it doesn't paint the whole picture" and "Democrats are just more nuanced than Reblicans" while at the same time reading simplified half truths like this.
  • notadiggtard, on 09/16/2008, -15/+5More ***** from Al-Reuters
  • NonLeftistDiggr, on 09/16/2008, -14/+22What a deceptive headline. Read the article, look at the violence overall, and subsequently bury as inaccurate for the fact warping title. This site is getting more manipulated and full of ***** by the day.

    And to build in some obamabot comment virus protection.... quote "I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated," "I've already said it's succeeded beyond our wildest dreams." OBAMA

    And don't ask for a source, because you know you saw that interview.

    BURIED FOR INACCURACY FOR THE WIN!!!!
    • oviron, on 09/16/2008, -4/+1And saying that must have made Obama throw up in his mouth because he knows it is BS, but he had to say it just to keep Fox and friends quiet about it. It isn't worth debating how or why the surge "worked". Its completely irrelevant. This "war" is irrelevant. "Its the economy stupid."
      • NonLeftistDiggr, on 09/16/2008, -2/+2To be fair, I have had some reponses to various articles in the past as poorly thought out as yours.

        I can't wait to see how Obama is going to "make government cool again." One thing is for sure based on his proposals, making it cool again will involve even more of our money, as if W and the republicrats didn't spend enough.
  • likwid81, on 09/16/2008, -8/+11The surge has worked. Wonder why you don't see much of the iraq war on the news lately? Not as much death and destruction to report as usual? hmmmmmmmmm...
  • kidathinnes, on 09/16/2008, -16/+6bbbbbut the surge is working. John McCain told me. He wouldn't lie.

    Would he?
  • reyoo30309, on 09/16/2008, -7/+12"Despite an increase in deadly attacks in the past few days, overall levels of violence in Iraq are at four-year lows."
    • stealthboy, on 09/16/2008, -7/+5Please do not confuse the liberal Obama fanatics with facts or statements of truth. Thank you.

    • burkhartmj, on 09/16/2008, -3/+6.....People dugg down a quote from this article with no qualification from the commentor? Wow, some people are just *****' up.
  • nem0, on 09/16/2008, -6/+5The pentagon wanted more troops for the initial invasion, but Rumsfeld cut their request in half. The surge increased the number of troops -- too little too late. If the administration had followed the advice of the experts, The liberation of Iraq may have been a success. It was mismanaged by incompetent leadership.

    I wonder how John Kerry would have done. At least he had tested military leadership experience.
    • pintomp3, on 09/16/2008, -1/+5besides the reasons for invasion itself, the biggest folly was to get rid of the current army. l. paul bremmer was so focused on privatizing everything and setting up a free market , he created an army of disgruntled men with military training who knew where all the weapons caches were.
  • bffoley, on 09/16/2008, -6/+4I wonder what troops in Afghanistan think about the "surge" working.
    • scamper22, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1they're thinking... great...now send some of those troops here so the Afghan surge can work.
      • bffoley, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1Exactly, they're robbing Peter to pay Paul. Violence in Afghanistan is rising and we can't do a surge there because we're sending all our new troops to Iraq
  • mikedoth, on 09/16/2008, -5/+3The surge will probably accomplish one thing, by pushing the bad guys to make more severe moves against us. Back anyone into a corner and they'll do things you don't expect. I don't think this is the end by a mile.
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 09/16/2008, -1/+3Are the bad guys going to hire the Joker?
  • kishosingh, on 09/16/2008, -1/+7Iraqi has right to live independently and America should give them right to rule themselves.
    • dev0null, on 09/16/2008, -2/+5Province by province, that is happening. Patience is a virtue.
  • NeoDemosthenes, on 09/16/2008, -2/+11Some quotes from the article, which the submitter apparently did not read before attepting to distort it with his headline -

    "General David Petraeus, whose term was marked by a "surge" of 30,000 extra U.S. troops and big falls in violence."

    "...overall levels of violence in Iraq are at four-year lows."

    "(Gates) said last week he believed the Iraq war was entering its "endgame", now that the extra U.S. troops have departed and Iraqi forces are taking more responsibility."

    "U.S. officials have cited the surge of American forces, and Petraeus' emphasis on troops getting into Iraqi communities to protect them, as a major reason for the decline in violence."

  • dildoolielly, on 09/16/2008, -10/+8The reason the death count is down is because a lot of the Iraqi people have left

    millions of displaced Iraqis. Yep, "surge" is working.

    Just wait till the hive dries out
  • BotchaMcCoola, on 09/16/2008, -4/+3There is a decrease in paramilitary activity mostly due to the US putting the Sunni militants on their payroll. But it is much too early to tell if this is "working" in some way favorable to the USA. But far more important is whether the Sunnis might be saving up for sophisticated weapons, and if they are building stronger support with the Saudis and Iraqi refugees in Syria. The latter could be imo the most serious outcome of Bush ME aggression. That is, could he succeed in getting Hezbollah and al-Qaeda types to unite against a common enemy?
  • badogg, on 09/16/2008, -0/+6I'm just glad the violence is down and the threat of death to the Iraqi people and our troops is much lower. If that was a result of the surge, great. If not, great. Less people dying - AWESOME.

    I don't let my political preferences cloud my wishful thinking on getting our men/women home safely and hoping the Iraqi people finally get to enjoy some peace and freedom.
  • Peabdog, on 09/16/2008, -1/+4Well, if presidential candidates weren't prolonging the fight, things might be going even better than they are now.

    http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hi9TDNHvuBZpFs ...

    "In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a "Strategic Framework Agreement" governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office, she said."

    Logan Act! Page for the Logan Act!
  • flaknugget, on 09/16/2008, -2/+4If you still think Iraq can by pacified with a foreign military occupation, you know nothing of their history.
    • davidkeithjones, on 09/16/2008, -1/+3Actually Iraqi's don't mind as much as you think. Its the hardcore religious fighters and assholes looking for more power that bring on the violence. Most Iraqi's just want the violence to end, even if it means the US staying a little longer.
    • representDLV, on 09/16/2008, -1/+2I hope you realize that Iraq was created by Great Britain after WWI in 1919-1920. And before that, what we now call "Iraq" was "occupied" by the Ottoman Empire for about 500 years? What history are you referring to?
      • 8213981283, on 09/16/2008, -1/+1maybe hes referring to something not so long ago as the Ottoman Empire or WWl?
      • representDLV, on 09/16/2008, -1/+0I'm just trying to figure out what unsuccessful foreign military occupation pacification attempts in Iraq's history he is referring to. From 1919 until basically 1958 Great Britain was in control. Once the British foreign occupiers left, Iraq fell into turmoil and civil war until Saddam Hussein took over in 1979. We know the history of Iraq from then on. So must assume that davidkeithjones is referring to Rome or Persia (both of which successfully conquered the area we now call Iraq). If history tells us anything, it tells us that Iraq most definitely can be pacified by foreign military occupation.
      • flaknugget, on 09/16/2008, -0/+2I was thinking of the British occupation, and how after WWI ended the British forces could only hold Baghdad until 1922, following 2 years of mass revolts from all religious factions in the area.

        There are several British military graveyards in Iraq that should be of, at least a little interest, to Americans today.

        Britain, and other Ally powers of that time did essentially draw the borders around modern Iraq, but their military forces were never welcome after the war was over.

        Sunni, Shia, and Kurds banded together to kick-out the westerners. And that part of their history is entrenched as deeply into their culture as the Civil War and the American Revolution is in your's
  • alragusa, on 09/16/2008, -1/+4HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of dollars (from taxes, printing and borrowing) were funneled into the hands of politicians and private (no-bid) contractors.

    The surge, without a doubt, worked. Now the American people are holding the bag.
  • seomike, on 09/16/2008, -6/+3Why don't they report that the death tolls were at their all time highs when the democrat were stalling funding in the congress and senate. The preliminary vote failed to defund the war. So what did Nancy Polosi have to do, she had to stuff a ***** bill with so much pork to buy votes that the president had to veto it and send it back.

    What happened? Didn't Jim Webb say "..we will be showing him the way. " Only thing you libs showed is how many troops you've killed by playing politics with this war. You are the definition of fail...
  • smnirven, on 09/16/2008, -2/+3The thing that makes me angriest about the surge is that really the only person that should be credited with it's success is General Petraeus. Not President Bush. Certainly not John McCain. The war was one of the biggest blunders America has committed in recent memory and the only reason why the violence is somewhat under control now is because of Petraeus. In my humble opinion Bush should be pinning the CMH (Congressional Medal of Honor) on him.
    • representDLV, on 09/16/2008, -0/+3I think it's funny how anything negative can be blamed on Bush. But anything positive definitely can't be the credited to Bush.

      And it's a bit early to call the war one of the biggest blunders in recent memory. It's not even over yet. Time will tell. In 10, maybe 20 years you very well may be right. But we shall see.
    • krAzykrAkr01, on 09/17/2008, -0/+1Really, the only people that should be credited with anything are the troops over there getting shot at everyday. Bush, Cheney, McCain, Obama, or Petraeus are not on that list.

      "The war was one of the biggest blunders America has committed in recent memory"

      I agree with that. War is always a blunder, in my opinion. The only people that win are the ones that don't have to go (see above list).
  • BadseedJR, on 09/16/2008, -2/+2Teriffic - "Many troops who were scheduled to replace those departing from Iraq will now head to Afghanistan, where insurgent violence has grown dramatically in the past two years."

    Off to fight another war we don't need to be in.
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 09/16/2008, -1/+2I thought Afghanistan was the 'good war?
  • jayscot, on 09/16/2008, -1/+6Personal opinion in a news title?
  • ThsGuyRightHere, on 09/16/2008, -0/+6From a "who should I vote for" point of view, the effectiveness of the surge is irrelevant. In my opinion the democrats are ill-advised to argue that the surge hasn't been effective. The more important issue is whether or not we should have gone into Iraq in the first place. The republicans' stance varies from "we were right to go to Iraq" to "maybe we shouldn't have, but we're there now and look the surge is working." Debating the surge effectively excuses Bush and company from leading us down this path in the first place.
    • representDLV, on 09/16/2008, -0/+4And that is definitely what the debate should be. Was it wise to go into Iraq in the first place? And there are compelling arguments on both side.
  • cuoops, on 09/16/2008, -3/+5Did you read the article you posted?
    Despite an increase in deadly attacks in the past few days, overall levels of violence in Iraq are at four-year lows.
    • shikamoo, on 09/16/2008, -0/+3MercyPo was just so excited to finally get her hands on some bad news she couldn't help herself.
  • rpupkin77, on 09/16/2008, -1/+4First of all, the poster of this article is a being silly goose because they edited the title of the news piece to espouse their own viewpoint.

    Secondly, as a whole, the surge has "succeeded beyond wildest dreams" (ask Obama) from a statistical point of view and Iraq is not nearly as violent nor is the enemy as robust as it was before the surge took place. That is an irrefutable fact. You can try and argue that point but you would be wrong, and by doing so you would be proving yourself a fool, so go ahead, argue with me if you want.

    I know that alluding to statistics sounds cold-hearted given the fact that there are still very violent acts in Iraq where innocents are dying, but at least I am not gleefully/smugly/sardonically (take your pick) editorializing a fact based article about death and destruction's title to promote a political POV.
  • Manther, on 09/16/2008, -4/+3The fact of the matter is, America, you can not listen to what ANY American media outlet says, and trust it blindly. You need to Stop being so lazy, and go out there to find the real facts (HINT: BBC has no reason to skew facts, you can get some real information from there, but not only there...) THEN Use your new found facts and ambition to tell the American government that you're not an ignorant ass, and you need them to stop putting false spins on all the stories to further their own political agenda. (Why? Because what they're doing now doesn't help anyone, it simply keeps you an ignorant ass so that you don't realize they're only out there to make money. They don't care about you for anything more than your vote, and your wallet. Period.)
    Find out what the rest of the world thinks about our surge, and occupation, and our leadership in general. Please realize that America doesn't rule the world, and will not be the sole deciding force when WW3 comes around.
  • gab00n, on 09/16/2008, -3/+2The only reason it appeared to be working was because they erected that giant wall dividing everyone. Now that the locals have figured out ways around this wall, things are continuing as usual.
  • shikamoo, on 09/16/2008, -2/+3What a wonderfully twisted job with the headline there, MercyPo. Hoping for failure if it helps get your guy elected, are you?

    There's nothing more disgusting than the people are so sucked up in partisan politics they gleefully celebrate any bad news they can get their hands on.
  • 15charmaxwtf, on 09/16/2008, -1/+2You can't say this! Now, repeat after me, 10 times. "The surge is working!"

    (And no copy/paste!)
  • mugupo, on 09/16/2008, -3/+1Surge did help, i pretty sure almost no one mention that the U.S. troop using our tax player money to pay former fighter that attack and kill U.S. troop to work as a street patrol. It does work, because usually the terrorist use them to carry their attack, now the work in opposite side, cause lose man power to carry attack.
  • tufftugg, on 09/16/2008, -2/+2 Anyone paying attention? The 'Awakening' started to happen, when the Shia decided they would quit attacking American's and defend themselves against the Arab fundamentalists. Before this hit the Western News, the Bush administration decided it was a great political time to make some points back home, and started the Surge. And of course the attacks died down due to the Awakening, and in the Western news it was due to the Surge...Wrong!
  • PolishLogic, on 09/16/2008, -2/+3Wow, suicide bombings in a Middle Eastern country.....who saw that coming.
    • Kizilbash, on 09/16/2008, -1/+1Not Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powel, Rice or any of the gang, that's for sure.
      • PolishLogic, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1I'd assume they did. Considering it's pretty much be the status quo of life over there for....well, since they started marketing those comfy exploding vests.
  • 223Sniper, on 09/16/2008, -2/+3too bad america is falling apart from the inside out, and the only thing that surged with the surge were american death rates and monthly war costs..*****.
  • aookay, on 09/16/2008, -1/+3Yes, it's working to basically bring the situation back to 4 years ago in Iraq. How is that "success"? You have to be really reaching for straws when you say that. The surge is just a political device used to help portray a "victory" in iraq is coming, and to justify us not pulling out. *****, Senator McCain is dumb.
  • Tynan, on 09/16/2008, -3/+4It must be a strange feeling to be emotionally invested in the defeat of your own country...
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.