Every picture tells a story, don't it. The following graphs don't tell the whole story of the surge strategy because Iraq is a big and old and complex place, but they do provide some measures of how the strategy is going, and it's going quite well. Civilian casualties are way down, to historic lows.
So are U.S. military casualties.
A hat tip to Engram for the above two graphs. The graphs below came from a Powerpoint file, courtesy of Michael Yon. The Powerpoint link is more complete than what I cut-and-pasted, and I blame my inferior blogging skills. Security incidents are way down.
ISF and U.S. military casualties are way down, even though the ISF launched major operations in Basra, Sadr City and Mosul.
High-profile attacks are way down, which is testament to our
success against al Qaeda and their ability to find
'splodeydopes Islamists who are willing blow
themselves up (and anyone else who happens to be in their blast
zones).
Ethno-sectarian violence is pushing zero.
This is not because all the neighborhoods and communities have already been ethnically cleansed. They're still mixed albeit less than they used to be. The reason is because al Qaeda is getting shredded and Shiite militias no longer have a reason to go on late-night hunts for military-age Sunni males.
IED explosions are way down, which is a strong indicator that we're making progress against Sunni insurgent groups and Iranian-backed Shiite militias.
Weapons caches found and cleared are way up, which is also a measure of our strategy because obtaining intelligence against the various insurgent and terrorist groups is a key component.
Political progress is also being made, as Ambassador Crocker has testified. Sorry, no pictures for that. Engram has some commentary which is worth excerpting:
A while ago, people were fond of asking this question: if you knew then what you know now, would you still have supported the invasion of Iraq? I think now might be a good time to ask a similar question of those who opposed the troop surge. Specifically, if you knew how successful it would turn out to be, would you have still opposed it?Perhaps Obama didn't catch Crocker's testimony, what with his campaigning and all. Political accommodations are happening all over the place in Iraq. We haven't reached all of them because the strategy is a work in progress, but given the progress made since last September, it would be reasonable to conclude that we should stick with a plan that is working, not abandon it. Obama did not make that conclusion. He was on the wrong side of the issue in January 2007, during Iraq's darkest hour, and he's on the wrong side of the issue today. He hasn't acknowledged that the strategy has worked, he hasn't said that he would adopt this strategy if elected, and he's rejected the Petraeus plan every step of the way, despite the clearly mounting evidence that Iraq is becoming more stabilized by dint of this plan. General Petraeus doesn't get all the credit because several fortuitous events have happened along the way, but at least partial credit is due. On the single most important decision on Iraq since 2003, Obama's decided poorly. Like with Kerry on the Gulf War, Obama is on the wrong side of history.Barack Obama's answer would appear to be "yes," and that really amazes me. In a new op-ed, he says:
]But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge....In any case, the real question on my mind today is this: if you knew how successful the surge would turn out to be (look at my charts above), would you have still opposed it? That is, are you comfortable with the idea that tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis would have surely perished in the God-forsaken bloodbath that would have undoubtedly followed our quick departure? Remember, the fighting at the time had nothing at all to do with a lack of political accommodation. Instead, al Qaeda was relentlessly sending its suicide bombers against innocent Shiite civilians.
While I'm on the subject of Obama's NYT op-ed, here's another statement, and it's patently ludicrous:
Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been.Never has been? This is judgment you can trust? It is true that Iraq was not a central front of the War Against Militant Islamism in 2003, but al Qaeda [i]made it one[/i] in the ensuing years. At the very minimum, Iraq [b]is[/b] one of two main fronts in the WAMI. To verify this, all you have to do is look at the suicide bombings in Iraq this year. I count 31, not including the latest attack in Baquba. Imagine if Israel experienced that many suicide terrorist attacks in 2008, and I'm pretty sure there hasn't been more than 31 suicide bombings in Afghanistan, which is Obama's stated central front. This is why I say that al Qaeda is losing, but they're not vanquished, and it's also why I say that Obama's statement that Iraq never was a central front in this war is patently ludicrous. Engram has more on Obama's ludicrosity.
There're a couple of more things about Obama's op-ed that stick in my craw. First, his opening sentence:
The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity.The shelf life of this sentence was about four hours. The BBC has an accurate translation of what al Maliki actually said:
US presidential contender Barack Obama has repeatedly seized on statements attributed to Iraqi leaders to support his call for a troop withdrawal deadline.I don't blame Obama for his incorrect opening sentence because it was al Maliki's own office that inserted the word "withdrawal" instead of "presence". But the fact still remains that Obama's opening sentence is inoperative, and a key leg of his argument has been knocked out from under him. Dr. iRack has a fair perspective on the State of Forces Agreement negotiations.The key statement cited by Mr Obama and others was made by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki last Monday in his address to Arab ambassadors in the United Arab Emirates.
The prime minister was widely quoted as saying that in the negotiations with the Americans on a Status of Forces Agreement to regulate the US troop presence from next year, "the direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on a timetable for their withdrawal".
That was the version of Mr Maliki's remarks put out in writing by his office in Baghdad.
It was widely circulated by the news media, and caught much attention, including that of Mr Obama.
There is only one problem. It is not what Mr Maliki actually said.
In an audio recording of his remarks, heard by the BBC, the prime minister did not use the word "withdrawal".
What he actually said was: "The direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on programming their presence."
1. The Iraqi leadership knows that the Iraqi public continues to dislike the U.S. presence, and in an election year those concerns have to be accounted for.Here's another Obama statement:2. The Iraqi leadership--Maliki in particular--is much more confident in the capabilities of the ISF, making them willing to bargain harder during negotiations.
3. Whether or not they want a timetable for withdrawal, they want a "time horizon" that establishes some parameters for the draw down of U.S. forces and the transition from a lead-U.S. role to a U.S. support role.
But . . .
4. Most Iraqi leaders recognize, deep down, that they will still need the U.S. to provide support and critical enablers to the ISF for a while to come even as the U.S. moves out of the lead in combat operations.
That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.So here are the questions: What war is Obama talking about? And how would withdrawing troops under his iron timetables end it? Obama can't be talking about al Qaeda because, by his own words (which are obviously wrong), Iraq isn't a central front in our war against al Qaeda, plus he said he would leave residual forces for counterterrorism operations. Is he talking about civil war? It can't be that because, with one keystroke, Obama ended the civil war in Iraq. One minute there's this on his webpage:
"The goal of the surge was to create space for Iraq's political leaders to reach an agreement to end Iraq's civil war."The next minute, the civil war is gone. Peace in our time. Is Obama talking about Sunni insurgents? Or Shiite paramilitias? Or Shiite Special Groups? I can't say for sure, but if we're at war with any or all of these groups, how does withdrawing our troops under an arbitrary and politically contrived timetable end the "war"? The groups are still there, and they're still mounting operations. Only, if we withdraw, they target fellow Iraqis (which they've already been doing) exclusively, instead of fellow Iraqis and American forces.
The bottom line is this. Barack Obama either doesn't understand or is unwilling to acknowledge the nature of the conflict and the steps to address it. Al Qaeda is in Iraq, they've made it a central front and they're still a threat there. Iraq remains a major battlefront in the WAMI. Leaving won't end that war. Rather, we'd be exiting a field of battle, and for all the wrong reasons. Iranian-backed Shiite militias are a threat to Iraqi security. Leaving won't end that war because the Quds forces are still there and they're still meddling. So what is the nature of the situation in Iraq? Given the graphical data above, my take is that we are entering (finally) a genuine phase of stabilization and reconstruction. Obviously, there are still hot spots, but if you look at Brookings' numbers, there are over 478,000 trained Iraqi forces, and an increasing number of battalions are taking the lead as time passes. Because of the improvement in these conditions, we should be able to send more troops home, with their replacements deployed to Afghanistan.
This is why Obama's proclamation to "end this war" is such a cheap slogan, and disingenuous to boot.
Recommended!
mbauer July 17th, 2008 at 11:18 a.m. CDT (link)
Great Post
What can I say,
Rod_Patrick July 17th, 2008 at 11:53 a.m. CDT (link)
the surge really worked.
And all the Democrats' statements against our continuing presence in Iraq are just foolish rhetorics, if not lies. These information that you have shown cannot be denied by any skeptic.
The data only means one thing:
PS: A must read post.
There seems to be a trend developing
phred July 17th, 2008 at 1:05 p.m. CDT (link)
here. I haven't seen the data represented so vividly. Impressive as it is informative. recommend
Highly rec'd....
Aaron Gardner July 17th, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. CDT (link)
...especially for all those dem lurkers here on RedState.
"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!
Steel-Belted Radial Right Winger
"I'll create 5 million jobs from out of unicorn farts and pixie dust" Justatron paraphrasing Obamessiah...yes I love it that much.
Need smaller graphs, but recommended
Jeff Emanuel July 17th, 2008 at 4:09 p.m. CDT (link)
Well,
Charles_Bird July 17th, 2008 at 5:20 p.m. CDT (link)
I did mention my inferior blogging skills. I was just happy that the images appeared at all.
1. McCain,
2. Thompson,3. Giuliani,4. RomneyThis is great information.
Justin_Case July 17th, 2008 at 4:52 p.m. CDT (link)
It's very interesting to note that the rate of Iraqi military casualties correspond with those of the US-only their numbers are much higher.
If, as detractors say, the Iraqis do not like the US and want us to leave, there sure are a whole lot of Iraqi soldiers who have given their lives for their country. So much for our "imposing" freedom on the Iraqi people.
One of the results of the Democrat's vocal opposition to the war and to the US Commander-in Chief has been a hesitancy on the part of average Iraqis to cast their lot with the US (due to their knowledge of our abandonment of the RVN). Their willingness to participate in the rebuilding of their country and in establishing a constitutional government will only become stronger.
Moe is correct. "Not in our(their) name".
We won't be so quick to forget either.
Numbers don't lie
Tom Skypek July 17th, 2008 at 7:21 p.m. CDT (link)
These visuals are great. The numbers simply don't lie. It is bizarre how Sen. Obama will not budge on this issue, despite the evidence. Doesn't say too much about the type of commander-in-chief he'd make.
Hope is Not A Foreign Policy
A Sane Environment
Theseus July 19th, 2008 at 2:08 a.m. CDT (link)
In a sane environment, those who have tried to block the surge and early on declared it a failure would have no credibility whatsoever. But we don't live in such an environment, do we?
"We like livin' right, and bein' free." --Merle Haggard
Bizarre Disdain
Tom Skypek July 19th, 2008 at 4:51 a.m. CDT (link)
At this point, their disdain for the president is simply bizarre. That's how Pelosi chooses to respond when questioned about her congressional recored--a diatribe? The Democratic leadership has no leadership skills; they're all rhetoric, just like their nominee.
Hope is Not A Foreign Policy
But I thought the surge was a failure?
bk July 19th, 2008 at 7:34 a.m. CDT (link)
Obama and the Dems still say that. And now that Obama is out of the Democratic primary, he's calling for a surge in Afghanistan. I'm so confused!
More Troops = More Security
Chuck_Norris_Republican July 20th, 2008 at 5:24 p.m. CDT (link)
Big Surprise!!! Just wish the administration went in with more troops from the get-go! Would have saved more lives and there would be more support for the GWOT. Starting the surge four years on,
I'm not sure what long term political goals it will translate into. Plus, we're starting to withdraw now b/c we do not have enough troops in Afghanistan. I hope those graphs don't start getting worse, now that we're starting to withdraw from Iraq.
Chuck Norris Republican
Part of the EIB (Excellence in Blogging)
"Chuck Norris Republican is the only man I would let raise my taxes." - Grover Nordquist
absolutely
nobob July 22nd, 2008 at 1:16 a.m. CDT (link)
why did we not secure Iraq from the get go, as you suggest? Rumsfeld, had he no experience? why must the surge come after so many american deaths? Bad intel about being greeted as liberators? Surge first, ask questions later!
I agree, nobob: thank God we didn't listen to the Democrats.
Moe Lane July 22nd, 2008 at 6:23 a.m. CDT (link)
At least our methodology let us get to the right solution. They're still trying to turn cowardice into a virtue.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.I've been usurped!the surge isn't just more troops, it was also
Kyle July 26th, 2008 at 9:11 a.m. CDT (link)
a change in strategy, such as interdiction of the border areas, and disarming the militias.
Why it was not done that way from the beginning is a mystery and will be a black stain on the administration.
Credit McCain, he said it was a bad policy from the beginning.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty" Kyle
An excellent presentation showing the...
Michael Dugas July 21st, 2008 at 8:31 p.m. CDT (link)
An excellent presentation showing the success of the surge and the positive results it had for both our troops and Iraqi civilians. What I wouldn't do to be able to have ALL of this printed on full page ads in every major paper around the world. Great job.
Intro to Federalist Papers; section 5; paragraph 4. "...dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the zeal for a firm and efficient government."
Have we forgotten ...
caztaz1 July 29th, 2008 at 1:54 p.m. CDT (link)
how the current administration, with the assistance of overzealous, ideologically driven behind the scenes enablers has crippled our once great nation-a beacon of hope and justice, more than any piss-ant radical group could have ever accomplished. I know we Americans would rather defend our U.S. Constitution than stand idly by as it struggles to ensure that our civil liberties remain intact. Our current malaise has its roots in an ill-advised, ill-fated choice to preemptively attack a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with 9-11. I don't weep for the former leader of Iraq's demise, nor his regime of terror. I do weep for the 4000+ U.S. Soldier deaths, their families and the families of innocent Iraqi civilians. In my opinion, these graphs, as well as those presented in Senate/House hearings is the most obscene display of perversion. We should all be asking ourselves, "How did we end up in this mess?"
*You* ended up in this mess, caztaz1, because you decided...
Moe Lane July 29th, 2008 at 2:53 p.m. CDT (link)
...that you only had to be for justice and freedom for others when a Democrat could take credit for it; and now you're unhappy about having to deal with the consequences of your poor moral position.
We enjoy watching people like you squirm under this, by the way.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.I've been usurped!Your civil liberties seem to be doing quite well, at least. nt
streetwise July 29th, 2008 at 4:07 p.m. CDT (link)
No Kidding!
Justin_Case July 29th, 2008 at 4:42 p.m. CDT (link)
I don't weep for the former leader of Iraq's demise, nor his regime of terror.
If it had been up to you and yours Saddam and his insane "kids" would still be terrorizing those same families for whom you claim to weep.
Had it been left to the Leftists in this country, and especially in Europe, UN sanctions eventually would have been lifted and Saddam would have re-armed.
Given the opportunity, there is no doubt in my mind Saddam would have found a way-most likely by proxy-to attack Americans.
THEN we would hear the chorus from the likes of Pelosi, "Why didn't Bush do something to stop this?" Or, "Bush shirked and we got jerked."
There are all kinds of quotes from leading Democrats who claimed Saddam was a threat and these would have been used to condemn inaction on the part of President Bush: "We told you so."
Face it, your side screwed up when it decided to politicize this war and to disrespect the troops ala Durbin, Murtha, Kerry and Hillary Clinton who as much as called General Petraeus a liar, with her "willing suspension of disbelief" comment.
Learn to live with it, because the bad news for you is we will prevail in Iraq.
More bad news for you coztoz
Justin_Case July 29th, 2008 at 5:19 p.m. CDT (link)
Just got this link from Drudge. The headline reads, Iraq oil exports up by 10 times over last year
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2008/me_oil0379_07_29.asp
Real solution
Vuk Zoric July 26th, 2008 at 8:02 a.m. CDT (link)
Wasn't the surge supposed to do something about political reconciliation in Iraq?
If the purpose of the surge was to lower the number Americans servicepeople killed, wouldn't it have been more efficient to just have brought them all home?
Even so, since the surge was announced, only 1000 Americans have died in Iraq. Why doesn't that number give me the same comfort it gives some of you?
Because you aren't paying attention? (nt)
Neil Stevens July 26th, 2008 at 8:32 a.m. CDT (link)
HTML Help for Red Staters
Nobody can claim a "free speech" right to suck the fun out of our lives. Certainly not on a private board. – Steve Jackson
The purpose of the surge was to help us win the war.
Moe Lane July 26th, 2008 at 8:49 a.m. CDT (link)
Which we're doing. I'm sorry if this means that you ended up on the opposite side of this particular moral question.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.I've been usurped!And Progress?
warmonger July 28th, 2008 at 8:44 p.m. CDT (link)
Really nice graphs. Of course, the "surge" was supposed to give the government of Iraq "breathing room" to get some work done. Noone except ryan crocker thinks that any real progress has been made as a result of the "surge".
right - noone
David Hinz July 28th, 2008 at 9:09 p.m. CDT (link)
welcome to RS Noone
The Minority Report -- The HinzSight Report -- TMRB.tv -- MFOB
And Progress?
warmonger July 28th, 2008 at 8:44 p.m. CDT (link)
Really nice graphs. Of course, the "surge" was supposed to give the government of Iraq "breathing room" to get some work done. Noone except ryan crocker thinks that any real progress has been made as a result of the "surge".
And Progress?
warmonger July 28th, 2008 at 8:46 p.m. CDT (link)
Really nice graphs. Of course, the "surge" was supposed to give the government of Iraq "breathing room" to get some work done. Noone except ryan crocker thinks that any real progress has been made as a result of the "surge".
Ach, laddie: Lewis Carroll was pulling your leg.
Moe Lane July 28th, 2008 at 8:56 p.m. CDT (link)
Saying it three times doesn't make it true.
Bye.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.I've been usurped!What's with the post stuttering anyway?
stickler88 July 28th, 2008 at 9:47 p.m. CDT (link)
Also, the link button script seems to be broken--it pops up 2 consecutive modal windows, the first of which makes little sense other than to negate the purpose of the second one, ostensibly being the linking of the highlighted text.
Sorry, I didn't know where else to put this...
hahahahaha- the surge! Thats a good one!
BrooklynBlue July 29th, 2008 at 11:45 a.m. CDT (link)
Have any of you read the news? The past two days saw the worst attacks in Iraq so far!
McCain was caught on camera clearly not understanding when the surge even happened!
Fox news was caught showing footage of him from 2000 to make him look younger!
It's hilarious!
You're *still* having your Special Time over that, Brooklyn/BrooklynBlue?
Moe Lane July 29th, 2008 at 11:54 a.m. CDT (link)
Have you considered trying a more socially acceptable sexual fetish: like, say, coprophilia?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.I've been usurped!I made those graphs myself!
BrooklynBlue July 29th, 2008 at 11:49 a.m. CDT (link)
Read the paper today. Ethnic clashes kill 71. Oh I forgot, republicans don't read much.
I acutally made those graphs myself. It was pretty easy.
i'm almost embarrassed to point this out...
stjack July 29th, 2008 at 12:41 p.m. CDT (link)
...because I'm sure you're all aware already that (a) for at least six months after the surge was announced, the line was "oh, well we don't have any progress to show because the troops aren't all in place yet." That's how it was until at least July of last year. (b) if you fault Obama for not admitting the surge was the closest we could get to the second coming of christ, you must also admit that the surge had a dual purpose: reduce violence and create an atmosphere for political reconciliation. If it only reduced violence, then it didn't completely succeed, now did it? (c) the Anbar Awakening, as we all know, started in about September of 2006, three months before the announcement of the "surge" strategy and about ten months before the US claimed the surge could start having any effects. So the dark purple indicating the surge should be set back to about July 2007 rather than January 2007 when it was announced. Notice also a significant decline in violence between September 2006 and December 2006, right before the surge was announced. Some have reported that part of the impetus for the awakening in the first place was the Sunnis' belief that we would be leaving soon. Note the dip between 9/06 and 12/06, and what happens after Bush announces not only that we're not going anywhere, but we're going to put in more troops. Immediately, you see an increase in violence until July or so when the troops were allegedly in place. So an observation just as legitimate, if not more so, than the myopic conclusions people are reaching that the surge "worked", is that the announcement of the surge actually increased violence until the presence of the full complement troops was able to nail it down. The trend the above graphs show is that if we had not announced the surge, two things might have happened: 1) the downward trend in violence that can only be attributed to the Awakening or ethnic cleansing would have continued downward; and 2) the Awakening might have had a stronger impact as peace-loving and nationalistic Iraqis joined the grass roots campaign. Either way, whatever the "surge" did, it did not accomplish political reconciliation.
Almost, but you have no shame...
blooch July 29th, 2008 at 1:11 p.m. CDT (link)
or paragraph breaks, either. At least you could use some ejaclamation points like warmonger.
"Basically, Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton have only 2 things in common: their gender and their good looks."--spam
some light reading for you....
Aaron Gardner July 29th, 2008 at 1:27 p.m. CDT (link)
From RealClearPolitics
Back then, though, there was no coherent U.S. political military strategy for the whole of Iraq. In Anbar province, the Sunni heartland, the U.S. focus was on military attacks, and tribal leaders were treated crudely and brusquely; in fall 2003, I heard several complain bitterly when I visited Anbar. They soon became supporters of the insurgency and al-Qaeda in Iraq.
Now Petraeus has made a new army counterinsurgency doctrine the basis of the military approach in Iraq, a doctrine that stresses flexibility and winning the support of local people. He says that U.S. commanders and troopers "get it," that "we are finally seeing the cumulative impact of changes in our [new counterintelligence] manual. Mission rehearsals in California used to [simulate] mechanized forces colliding in the Mojave desert." But now the exercises simulate the challenge of dealing with Iraqi villagers and townsmen, with "thousands of Iraqi speakers playing roles."
We can now see the new doctrine in action. When tribal leaders in Anbar turned against al-Qaeda in Iraq because it had started persecuting local Sunnis, and when these sheikhs asked for U.S. backing, an army commander in Anbar took a chance and agreed to support them. (In 2006, U.S. commanders rebuffed similar requests.) Now the U.S. support has become massive.
Petraeus credits the Anbar movement, known as "the Anbar awakening," with creating a "dramatic shift. There was a critical mass of popular opposition to al-Qaeda in Anbar, and it rippled down the Euphrates Valley and around Baghdad." Now tribesmen do most of the policing in Anbar, and about 70,000 tribal fighters are assisting U.S. forces in Baghdad and elsewhere. )
That should clear things up.
"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!
Steel-Belted Radial Right Winger
"I'll create 5 million jobs from out of unicorn farts and pixie dust" Justatron paraphrasing Obamessiah...yes I love it that much.
some light reading for you....
Aaron Gardner July 29th, 2008 at 1:33 p.m. CDT (link)
From RealClearPolitics
Back then, though, there was no coherent U.S. political military strategy for the whole of Iraq. In Anbar province, the Sunni heartland, the U.S. focus was on military attacks, and tribal leaders were treated crudely and brusquely; in fall 2003, I heard several complain bitterly when I visited Anbar. They soon became supporters of the insurgency and al-Qaeda in Iraq.
Now Petraeus has made a new army counterinsurgency doctrine the basis of the military approach in Iraq, a doctrine that stresses flexibility and winning the support of local people. He says that U.S. commanders and troopers "get it," that "we are finally seeing the cumulative impact of changes in our [new counterintelligence] manual. Mission rehearsals in California used to [simulate] mechanized forces colliding in the Mojave desert." But now the exercises simulate the challenge of dealing with Iraqi villagers and townsmen, with "thousands of Iraqi speakers playing roles."
We can now see the new doctrine in action. When tribal leaders in Anbar turned against al-Qaeda in Iraq because it had started persecuting local Sunnis, and when these sheikhs asked for U.S. backing, an army commander in Anbar took a chance and agreed to support them. (In 2006, U.S. commanders rebuffed similar requests.) Now the U.S. support has become massive.
Petraeus credits the Anbar movement, known as "the Anbar awakening," with creating a "dramatic shift. There was a critical mass of popular opposition to al-Qaeda in Anbar, and it rippled down the Euphrates Valley and around Baghdad." Now tribesmen do most of the policing in Anbar, and about 70,000 tribal fighters are assisting U.S. forces in Baghdad and elsewhere. )
That should clear things up.
"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!
Steel-Belted Radial Right Winger
"I'll create 5 million jobs from out of unicorn farts and pixie dust" Justatron paraphrasing Obamessiah...yes I love it that much.
you should be embarassed
Streiff July 29th, 2008 at 1:32 p.m. CDT (link)
though not for the reason you think
"A man does what he can and endures what he must."
Have we forgotten...
caztaz1 July 29th, 2008 at 2:05 p.m. CDT (link)
how the current administration, with the assistance of overzealous, ideologically driven behind the scenes enablers has crippled our once great nation-a beacon of hope and justice, more than any piss-ant radical group could have ever accomplished? I know we Americans would rather defend our U.S. Constitution than stand idly by as it struggles to ensure that our civil liberties remain intact. Our current malaise has its roots in an ill-advised, ill-fated choice to preemptively attack a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with 9-11. I don't weep for the former leader of Iraq's demise, nor his regime of terror. I do weep for the 4000+ U.S. Soldier deaths, their families and the families of innocent Iraqi civilians. In my opinion, these graphs, as well as those presented in Senate/House hearings is the most obscene display of perversion. We should all be asking ourselves, "How did we end up in this mess?"
Because
wt259 July 29th, 2008 at 4:13 p.m. CDT (link)
the people who railed about S. Hussein having WMD's and exporting WMD's, in violation of who even counts how many UN resolutions, did absolutely nothing about it. They all knew he had 'em, knew he'd use 'em, knew he had used 'em and wanted something done, but did nothing.
They would much rather sit on the sidelines, see which way the wind will blow, then accuse the President of acting on the intelligence that was passed to him by the previous do-nothings and our European and Mid-East allies, so that he could usurp the constitution