Former CIA Scum David Petreaus hounded by students first day on new job

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Well I don't know wtf you are talking about.  There isn't an issue with my argument disagreeing with itself.  I don't know what you're talking about with grammar either.  Were you thinking I was making a grammar issue with your misuse of tactical level of command?  If so, it wasn't a grammar issue, its a you don't know what you're talking about issue.

So, yes?

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

On a different note I guess I'm not surprised, but it is still strange to see people repeating that the Surge was successful.

 

[Cartierfor3]

Self righteousness is not a quality character trait

[Kat Kid]

On a different note I guess I'm not surprised, but it is still strange to see people repeating that the Surge was successful.

 

I guess it did get Obama elected/re-elected....

[ednksu]

On a different note I guess I'm not surprised, but it is still strange to see people repeating that the Surge was successful.

and your analysis is......?

[ednksu]

Well I don't know wtf you are talking about.  There isn't an issue with my argument disagreeing with itself.  I don't know what you're talking about with grammar either.  Were you thinking I was making a grammar issue with your misuse of tactical level of command?  If so, it wasn't a grammar issue, its a you don't know what you're talking about issue.

So, yes?

God you are so awful.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I think we've found where Air America's foreign policy wonk landed.  Just blithering gibberish and anger rolled up into one incoherent package.

[Kat Kid]

On a different note I guess I'm not surprised, but it is still strange to see people repeating that the Surge was successful.

and your analysis is......?

Iraq is in the middle of a low grade civil war just like before.  The only thing it did was let idiots declare victory so we could get out.

[ednksu]

On a different note I guess I'm not surprised, but it is still strange to see people repeating that the Surge was successful.

and your analysis is......?

Iraq is in the middle of a low grade civil war just like before.  The only thing it did was let idiots declare victory so we could get out.

Yeah its not anywhere near as bad as pre surge levels.  At that point we had a full on civil war, this is some good ole fashion ethnic cleansing and sectarian violence. 
civ deaths

Troops
http://www.icasualties.org/Iraq/

The fact is that you cannot say the surge didn't save the end game for an already mumped up Iraq plan.  The continued sectarian violence in no way is anywhere near the same intensity as pre surge.  To make that comparison ignores the kind of force which was put in place to quell the civil war at the time. 

[Kat Kid]

Your numbers are measuring military personnel and completely ignore the situation.  So I guess they are "right" but they are completely misleading.  Iraq is in the midst of a civil war.  People are dying in huge numbers and for the average Iraqi it is just as violent as 2008, when the "surge" had supposedly fixed everything.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/53-killed-in-iraq-car-bomb-blasts-29580633.html

Iraq is experiencing its deadliest bout of violence since 2008, raising fears the country is returning to a period of widespread killing such as that which pushed it to the brink of civil war following the 2003 US-led invasion. More than 4,000 people have been killed in attacks since the start of April, including 804 in August, according to United Nations figures.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24100632

A fresh wave of bombs has killed more than 40 people across Iraq - mostly targeting Shia areas - officials say.

The deadliest was in the city of Hilla, south of the capital Baghdad, where two car bombs at a market killed at least 15 civilians.

Other bombs hit Baghdad itself as well as Basra, Nasiriya and Karbala in the south of the country.

Sectarian violence has surged across Iraq in recent months, reaching its highest level since 2008.

More than 5,000 people have been killed so far this year in Iraq, 800 of them in August alone, according to the United Nations.

[ednksu]

Do you know how to read?  I mean you can't even have a conversation on this rough ridin' board anymore.  If you aren't going to give an honest attempt at having a conversation let me know now so I can eject and don't waste my time.  The graph is the civ deaths in Iraq, not military causality.

So if you actually read the info instead of finding stats to back your preconceptions you'll see that 2008 had an average of 827 deaths per month.  Now you'll also notice that 2008 peaked in March with 1623 deaths and than fell to mid 500s for the final quarter of the year.  So we have quite the peak and slide which make the year's average look worse when the distribution clearly puts the majority to the front of the year with an improving situation in the back of the year. Now we have seen a dramatic up tic in violence this year with May being a HUGE outlying moth.  Your article falsely makes a comparison to 2008 and violence levels there as if its indicative of a trend.  yes that month had terrible violence but it is clearly an outlying stat and not indicative of the last year of Iraq (887,544,395,358,357,275,240,290,396,422,469,529)  So what we see is that Iraq is a shithole with terrible sectarian violence, but no where near pre-surge levels of 2006 or 20007 where we were peaking at 3279 and 2948 respectively.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Isn't it more likely that the increased violence is a result of the US (prematurely?) pulling out of Iraq, rather than a failed surge.

[ednksu]

Isn't it more likely that the increased violence is a result of the US (prematurely?) pulling out of Iraq, rather than a failed surge.

agreed, but the prematurely qualification implies that there would be a correct time to pull out in the future.  I think there would never be a *right* time to get out of that quagmire.  Just GTFO.

[Kat Kid]

Do you know how to read?  I mean you can't even have a conversation on this rough ridin' board anymore.  If you aren't going to give an honest attempt at having a conversation let me know now so I can eject and don't waste my time.  The graph is the civ deaths in Iraq, not military causality.

So if you actually read the info instead of finding stats to back your preconceptions you'll see that 2008 had an average of 827 deaths per month.  Now you'll also notice that 2008 peaked in March with 1623 deaths and than fell to mid 500s for the final quarter of the year.  So we have quite the peak and slide which make the year's average look worse when the distribution clearly puts the majority to the front of the year with an improving situation in the back of the year. Now we have seen a dramatic up tic in violence this year with May being a HUGE outlying moth.  Your article falsely makes a comparison to 2008 and violence levels there as if its indicative of a trend.  yes that month had terrible violence but it is clearly an outlying stat and not indicative of the last year of Iraq (887,544,395,358,357,275,240,290,396,422,469,529)  So what we see is that Iraq is a shithole with terrible sectarian violence, but no where near pre-surge levels of 2006 or 20007 where we were peaking at 3279 and 2948 respectively.

So where on that chart does it show 800 deaths?  I didn't see the spike.  I looked at the source for the data (maybe you didn't) and it had very low numbers and it had it broken down by "civilian" and "Iraqi security forces."  I didn't spend a lot of time looking at the methodology or how they were defining things, but considering the gulf between what it is showing on that graph, the lack of sourcing (the breakdowns stop in 2011) and what was in my more specific sources I really have to say unless you come up with a better source that has month-by-month casualty rates that are actually sourced through 2013 then stop trying to make specific claims about the levels of violence.  Even conceding that things are less violent than the peak of the civil war with U.S. and coalition forces on the ground does not mean that the surge was a success.  There has been no reconciliation between the factions, Iraq is not a functioning society, there are hundreds of people being killed in terrorist attacks each month. 

As for Sugar Dick-  Yes, let's just occupy Iraq for the next hundred years.  Maybe then we can get everyone to get along in Winston Churchill's country that was drawn for the sole purpose of giving the Brits a taste of oil and pitting three distinct ethnic groups against one another. 

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

The question as to "when" we should have left Iraq is neither here nor there with respect to the success of the surge.

Saying the surge was a failure because violence escalated 4 years later, as a result of the misguided application of political rhetoric not the surge, is logically disingenuous and misrepresents the objective of the surge.  Basically its a really stupid leftist talking point raised by a stupid leftist parrotting some nonsense he read on the internet.

[Kat Kid]

The question as to "when" we should have left Iraq is neither here nor there with respect to the success of the surge.

Saying the surge was a failure because violence escalated 4 years later, as a result of the misguided application of political rhetoric not the surge, is logically disingenuous and misrepresents the objective of the surge.  Basically its a really stupid leftist talking point raised by a stupid leftist parrotting some nonsense he read on the internet.

The question as to "when" we should have left Iraq is neither here nor there with respect to the success of the surge.

Saying the surge was a failure because violence escalated 4 years later, as a result of the misguided application of political rhetoric not the surge, is logically disingenuous and misrepresents the objective of the surge.  Basically its a really stupid leftist talking point raised by a stupid leftist parrotting some nonsense he read on the internet.

Well let's talk a bit about what the stated objectives of the surge were.  There is a whole document detailing the responsibilities of the Iraqis, the Coalition forces and for tactics, but strategically the vision was "winning the war to win the peace" and there was quite a bit of talk about "making space for the hard work of governing."

Here is what I'm talking about:

George W. Bush
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/10/AR2007011002208.html

But victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world: a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people. A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them, and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and grandchildren.

I think we probably got the 2nd part, about fighting terrorists and peace and security for Americans but considering Iraq was never a threat to our children and grandchildren until we invaded that is a bit irrelevant.

The first part?  Not seeing it.  Kurds have basically formed their own state up north and seceded.  Shias run everything south of Kirkuk and the Sunnis are setting off bombs and have never recovered from having their country taken from them.

Of course other things have happened since then.  But the stated objective was not for Iraq to be dealing with terrorism on a daily basis.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Oh, I see.  It's an "I hate GWB" thing.

If you want to pretend Iraq is in the same place today as it was in 2008, or even 2002, that's your prerogative.  At least we all now know we're dealing with a nut.

[ednksu]

To Kat Kid I dropped a link in my post of info leading to confusion.  My apologies. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/ has info on the number of civilian deaths which is where I was pulling the graph and stats from.