"And then in early 2007 came the Surge, which so many of us in the
anti-war left of the Democratic Party predicted would be a failure,
throwing good men and women and billions of dollars after futility. We
were wrong."

"The surge did, in fact, lead to a reduction of violence, confirmed by media on the ground as well as our military leaders."

Just because there is evidence that the surge "worked" in that violence was reduced, does not mean that it can be truly judged to have been worthwhile. By that I mean obviously some of our troops that were brought over for the surge were casualties.
Whether their sacrifices were truly worth the result can only be d...

"And then in early 2007 came the Surge, which so many of us in the
anti-war left of the Democratic Party predicted would be a failure,
throwing good men and women and billions of dollars after futility. We
were wrong."

"The surge did, in fact, lead to a reduction of violence, confirmed by media on the ground as well as our military leaders."

Just because there is evidence that the surge "worked" in that violence was reduced, does not mean that it can be truly judged to have been worthwhile. By that I mean obviously some of our troops that were brought over for the surge were casualties.
Whether their sacrifices were truly worth the result can only be determined over a longer stretch of time. If the level of violence (which is still substantial) subsides then an argument could be made that is was a success. If the violence spirals again then that argument can't be made, unless you consider the loss of those "surge casulties" to be worth the price of a lull in the violence.
I would love to wind up saying I was wrong and have a good outcome to this quagmire. But this isn't likely to happen.

My point is there is such a thing as historical perspective. If one judges how effective the German's war plans were in mid 1942 in an objective fashion and does not consider anything that happened from then until 1945 objectivly it would appear that their strong military program and their uncalled for and aggressive blitzkrieg tactics against their neighbors were a success!

Let's wait to see what happens down the road a bit before (like a year or two even) before declaring the surge to have been successful. I think a must more intelligent evaluation of it's effectiveness can be achieved if we take off our US colored instant gratification glasses and see things cleary. This...

My point is there is such a thing as historical perspective. If one judges how effective the German's war plans were in mid 1942 in an objective fashion and does not consider anything that happened from then until 1945 objectivly it would appear that their strong military program and their uncalled for and aggressive blitzkrieg tactics against their neighbors were a success!

Let's wait to see what happens down the road a bit before (like a year or two even) before declaring the surge to have been successful. I think a must more intelligent evaluation of it's effectiveness can be achieved if we take off our US colored instant gratification glasses and see things cleary. This is not negativity for no purpose, this is objective vision
.
One last thing- I don't have the numbers for how many troops from the additional surge force have died or been injured but for those who believe it was worth it, Care to throw out a few numbers about how many US soldiers that were injured and killed that you would find acceptable based on the value that this "successful" surge has gained for us?

I see your point, tommy. However, your point does not take into account the facts about al qaeda and the fact they cannot recruit, we are winning the hearts and minds of the Middle East, Iran's role in Iraq is diminishing, Iraq is stepping up and defending herself, violence has decreased dramatically, etc etc.
You can be cautious and I am sure that is prudent, but it seems to me a stretch to say we still have to wait and see if the surge worked. I am also sure there will be a push by the Left in America to bring the troops home quickly enough to allow Iraq to fail, since they want it to fail.
Sure, violence could increase a year or two from now, but that does not remove the fact that the s...

I see your point, tommy. However, your point does not take into account the facts about al qaeda and the fact they cannot recruit, we are winning the hearts and minds of the Middle East, Iran's role in Iraq is diminishing, Iraq is stepping up and defending herself, violence has decreased dramatically, etc etc.
You can be cautious and I am sure that is prudent, but it seems to me a stretch to say we still have to wait and see if the surge worked. I am also sure there will be a push by the Left in America to bring the troops home quickly enough to allow Iraq to fail, since they want it to fail.
Sure, violence could increase a year or two from now, but that does not remove the fact that the surge worked and that now there is opportunity for Iraq to strengthen it's own defenses and infrastructure.

However, Lannie is approaching a new dilemma. When does he admit that reshaping the middle east was the correct course in fighting terror. The US now has Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, and UAE as allies. Iran and Syria have become much more isolated.

The entire Middle East could be on the precipice of joining the rest of the world in the 21st century. The history books will give Bush credit for that and the surge will be the defining battle.