"And the Pres has had a chance for 3 years. He doesn't get an unlimited blank approval for ANYTHING" and
"The whole idea that 140k troops couldn't succeed in 3 years, but 161k troops probably WILL succeed, and that is striking fear into the hearts of the Dems sounds like your paranoid cynical fantasy to me."
This latter definitely says they DID NOT succeed.
The above are both completely factual statements, so you are reading into them whatever you are reading into them.
The first sentence is a fact.
And President Bush often says he is doing what he thinks necessary "to succeed in the mission", logically implying that we haven't succeeded yet. So, that his view, not mine. I'm just echoing Bush's view that we have not yet succeeded in Iraq in the 2nd sentence.
Nothing in these posts or ANY of my posts supports your claim that I have said ad nauseum that the coalition involvement in Iraq is a complete failure, 'cause I don't think it has been so would never write that. Got it, Sparky?
"Do you know any of them and by what date they are expected to be achieved so that we outside observers can have some method of determining progress?"
I think you know what is being attempted: A reasonable lowering of the murder rate. A reliable ability of Iraqi government to govern democratically and without overthrow from hostiles. A certainty that Iraq cannot be used as a launching pad for attacks against America. A footing in Iraq for American forces to safeguard their interests in a strategic area of the planet.
Aside from a lower death rate, the above qualitative things arent really measurable milestones. Sounds like there aren't really measurable milestones which will allow us outsiders to measure the success or failure of the surge.
Creating a certainty that Iraq cannot be used as a launching pad for attacks against America is not a milestone, and certainly can't be measured in any way.
I would say if the new policy is "clear and hold", then the public should be made aware of which districts or blocks have been cleared and when, and then we should be made aware of the murder rates in those "cleared and held" locations. That would at least be measurable.
President Bush has said it will be a long process winning out over time.
He really should have said this in 2002, don't ya think? What would be the chances of Congressional approval if Bush had proposed a 15 year occupation of Iraq in 2002? Methinks low. I supported the invasion and removal of Saddam - I certainly didn't support a decade or multi-decade hostile involvement in Iraq.
And if the American people don't feel the cost is worth the perceived benefit, we may pull the plug on his proposed long process.
Also, this insurgency war is fueled by Iran and Syria. They are a threat to Maliki and they supply weapons, money and terrorists.
This is said all the time on the news with zero proof. Please provide your proof of the above. How much money has Iran and Syria given toward the isurgency? How many "terrorists" have they provided? And where did you get these numbers, because I hear them all the time with ZERO proof.
So go ahead, show the proof.
So this initiative of stopping Iranian control over hostiles and indirectly over the confidence of the Iraqi government is critical and is being ramped up right now.
You've bought this hook line and sinker! How many Iraqi hostiles are under Iranian control, and how did you get that number? I'm waiting...
As to detailed goals (take this street by Tuesday and secure those 21 blocks by no later than Mar. 11, etc. etc.)--sorry. I think those details are perhaps beyond the average person.
What?! This is something the average person CAN understand.
Announcement - This section of Bagdhad has been cleared.
Daily/Weekly Announcement - either there were zero acts of violence in that section (good), or the acts of violence in that section have doubled from last month (bad). That's measurable and easy to understand. |
