US "Surge Strategy" may be working in Iraq

[mollox]

On tonight’s BBC2 “This Week” I’ve just heard retired UK General Sir Mike Jackson agree that the US “Surge” strategy may actually be working in Iraq. He rightly added that the problem is ultimately a political rather than a military one.

It makes me wonder if General Westmoreland wasn’t right to advocate a similar strategy for Vietnam, which was rejected by the politicians in face of public opposition fuelled by a hostile media.

Of course, on the broader historical canvas, Vietnam might be rightly regarded as a battle lost against expansionist totalitarian communism in a broader world-wide war that was that was ultimately won by the West. That “war”, in all its formats, lasted c. 50 years post WWII, a lesson perhaps for our expectations for the resolution of the “war against terrorism”?

Media please take note: The problems besetting the world are unlikely to resolve themselves in a timeframe designed for the benefit of 24-hour news or tabloid-type headlines.

[Akrasia]

Lets get one thing straight. Whatever the U.S. military tells us about anything that happens in Iraq is almost certainly a lie.

There might have been a reduction in terrorist attacks in the recent handful of days, but we have no way of knowing, because most reporters are unable to leave their hotels because if they do, they are very likely to get blown up or kidnapped.

We have to take the word of the occupying army and their extremely lob sided press corps who's mission is to follow orders first, and report the news whenever it complies with following orders.

[Pidge]

The Onion confirms this.

[irishpeoplearewhingers]

The surge is doing ok....but as was pointed out, Iraq is a political problem...I am sure all those deals being brokered with insurgents are having as much impact as the increased number of troops....

[Pax]

This might have something to do with how air strikes on Iraq have increased 400% in the last year. As the previous Lancet studies show this has terrible consequences.

But shure what with the oil privatisation law an all, looks like Iraq has worked to plan for some* in a big $30 trillion manner.

So in a way (a sick, N, twisted way mind) you're right m[b]ollox

*
Jim Holt: It’s the Oil
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/holt01_.html

[Akrasia]

This might have something to do with how air strikes on Iraq have increased 400% in the last year. l

Yeah, That's kinda what I meant to say.

All these tonnes of bombs that the U.S. drop on Iraq, According to the Media and Iraq Body count, rarely kill anyone.

How does that make any sense? Maybe once a month we hear about an airstrike that kills a few civilians, what about all the other hundreds of other air strikes that happened that month? What are they bombing?

The reality is, these bombs murder people every day. We hardly ever hear about these deaths, when we do, they're reported either as isolated incidents, or as targeted assassinations of 'key Al Qaeda leaders' (according to the U.S. military, just like civilians in a guilford pub are 'legitimate targets' according to the IRA)

[irishpeoplearewhingers]

it is probably worth it overall if it means that they control the Iraqi oil supply....

[Champa]

it is probably worth it overall if it means that they control the Iraqi oil supply....

People like you are parasitic sickos.

[irishpeoplearewhingers]

it is probably worth it overall if it means that they control the Iraqi oil supply....

People like you are parasitic sickos.

How? I am not the one invading for the sake of oil......

[Champa]

it is probably worth it overall if it means that they control the Iraqi oil supply....

People like you are parasitic sickos.

How? I am not the one invading for the sake of oil......

But you seem to endorse it, eh?