3
POPSResurgent Taliban in Afghanistan Another result of "successful" troop surge in Iraq? As forces that could be used in Afghanistan continue to be diverted to Iraq the failure of the US/NATO Afghan war becomes even clearer.
0
POPSU.S.-Georgia training begins amid Russia strain Okay people once again its time to wake-up.. This was back in July! Remember, it was American backed Georgia that attacked Russian peacekeeping troops.. The Stock Market just experienced a sudden surge.. This is another set-up by the bankers and Govt.. Russia for understandable reasons isn't threatened by us -- we have no manufacture, infrastructure, money, troops for war .. We are all busy on the last Govt lie 911.. The outcome of this isn't good -- once again we are protecting an oil source (pipeline) that bypasses Russia to the west.. Russia supplies energy, resources to most of Europe so there WILL be NO support on this one.. But watch out I'd bet money Israel has a play in this somehow again as they sit back and watch while we get involved in yet more mess!!!!
4
POPSThe surge is working? An insider returns home "A Guardian journalist returns home to Iraq to find that far from what we hear in the US, the surge has produced nothing approaching normalcy or peace, but rather ghettos seething with violence, with nothing but makeshift walls dividing the increasingly hostile warring factions"
8
POPSEmbedded reporters or Republican activists? Cont.... "It's unremarkable to send reporters with thin journalistic credentials to Iraq, or to promise that journalists with a known political bias will report "objectively." Conservative and liberal publications send their preferred reporters to Iraq all the time, and their representatives come home, unsurprisingly, with differing conclusions. But what about sending political activists and GOP operatives to Iraq in the guise of journalists, with the cooperation of the U.S. military and on the taxpayers' dime, so that the activists can come home and proselytize for the Republican presidential candidate's position on the war?"
4
POPSStrategy Or Magic Numbers And Stump Politics? Yet, unlike the Iraq surge he opposed (and still opposes), where increased numbers were based on a mission transition in 2007 and requirements to fulfill that mission, Senator Obama’s surge plan for Afghanistan appears on its face to have little concrete vision beyond sending in more troops. What’s more telling is that there is little in the way of detailing how that specific number of additional troops was arrived at. The lack of accompanying explanation - suggests it may be just that, a number. This, if so, is not a plan. Perhaps his military advisors may want to sharpen their pencils and share a thought or two. Perhaps we simply missed them amid the frequent criticism. Or perhaps the senator may reverse course and return to his once-stated predisposition to send US troops into Pakistan. Otherwise, it all rings as hollow criticism without serious alternative. That’s not a plan. And it’s not a strategy. That’s simply stump politics.
5
POPSFormer Iraq Prime Minister: Surge failed primary objective Some military success, but failure at the main objectives, and "soon you will have reversals." This is what we've been saying all along: the main objective of the surge was reconciliation, and when that mission failed, it was replaced by "reduction in violence" as the measure of success.
2
POPSEx-insurgents Want More Money, or Else To get a real idea of how this surge is not working. Read the rest of the story. Then read the comments. The comments are from real soldiers. You know. The troops we pretend to support.
10
POPSThe Democrats' Fairy Tale
And the improvements in Anbar could never have been sustained without aggressive American military efforts — efforts that were more effective in 2007 than they had been in 2006, due in part to the addition of the surge forces. Last year’s success, in Anbar and elsewhere, was made possible by confidence among Iraqis that U.S. troops would stay and help protect them, that the U.S. would not abandon them to their enemies. Because the U.S. sent more troops instead of withdrawing — because, in other words, President Bush won his battles in 2007 with the Democratic Congress — we have been able to turn around the situation in Iraq. And now Iraq’s Parliament has passed a de-Baathification law — one of the so-called benchmarks Congress established for political reconciliation. For much of 2007, Democrats were able to deprecate the military progress and political reconciliation taking place on the ground by harping on the failure of the Iraqi government to pass the benchmark legislation
1
POPSAfghanistan: Obama Sees Problems; McCain Sees A solution The differences are not small ones, and reflect a distinction between the kind of staff-driven, laundry-list mush that sees the immensity of a problem and a leader-driven set of priorities that sees a solution. It is the distinction between Obama's opposition to the Iraq surge and McCain's support for it: not just the courage to make the tough choice, but the clarity to follow the right course. It's also the distinction between winning the war and simply ending it. Thomas Donnelly is the Resident Fellow in Foreign & Defense Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute.
8
POPSLanny Davis: "We were wrong" Thank You, Lannie. It is great to see there are still stand-up people on the left. From article: "Maybe another democracy, however imperfect, other than Israel in the Middle East could lead to more moderation, possibly other democracies? Democracies that could serve as bulwarks against al Qaeda-type of terrorist states?" "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."
7
POPSObama Scrubs website of surge criticism Yes, I'm always supportive of something that has been proven successful too. A little late though. Nice try Obama. After you trounced the efforts, the policy, the military...now that the surge has made significant progress, you want to slap them on the back and join the chorus of "Good job, guy!"
6
POPSIn Speech, Obama Calls Iraq a Distraction He's right and he's also right to point out that McCain seems to be running for the position of President of Iraq. For the right, Iraq isn't a pointless sidetrip, but the be-all and end-all of fighting terrorism -- to the detriment of addressing terrorism anywhere else. At this point, the only real reason we're fighting is to preserve George W. Bush's reputation. That's a pretty crappy cause to ask people to die for.
12
POPSWhy surge success is irrelevant "Arguments over whether U.S. forces can prevail in Iraq bypass a truth that no amount of media spin can change: The U.S. war effort in Iraq has always been illegitimate and fundamentally wrong."
5
POPSMcCain's Surge in Iraq Crippling Efforts in Afghanistan The death rate for American troops in Afghanistan last month was four times that of Iraq. The last two months have been the deadliest of the war for U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan since 2001. And today, Afghanistan sustained the deadliest single terrorist attack since 9/11 when suspected Taliban militants blew up the Indian embassy in Kabul. This is directly attributable to negligent policies set forth by the Bush administration--an administration dangerously obsessed with Iraq at the expense of the Real Global War on Terror. When many were urging the U.S. to focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan in early 2007, the Bush administration--with the support of Senator John McCain--launched the "surge" of troops into Baghdad. Unfortunately, Iraq is not, as John McCain says, the "central front" in the War on Terror--and it never has been. If there is such a thing, it is in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
2
POPSMcCain vs. Obama On National Security that espouses the destruction of the State of Israel as its fondest wish and pledges undying enmity to the United States to possess the weapons to advance their malevolent ambitions." He also rejects "unconditional dialogues" with Iran. Obama has delivered messages on Iran that were more mixed. But that only makes diplomacy more important. If we must use military force, we are more likely to succeed, and will have far greater support at home and abroad, if we have exhausted our diplomatic efforts." In the same speech, however, Obama promised: "aggressive, principled diplomacy without self-defeating preconditions....Obama missed a vote on a controversial amendment offered by Sen. Jon Kyl and Lieberman that proposed labeling Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization . Obama called the amendment a repeat of the mistakes that led to war in Iraq; however, he had cosponsored an earlier bill declaring the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization
1
POPSIraq: media make-believe and election-year truth-trashing Whopper No. 3: Success in Iraq is an illusion - the surge failed. Folks, this is something only a New York Times columnist could believe. Every single significant indicator, from Iraqi government progress through the performance of Iraqi security forces to the plummeting level of violence, has changed for the better - remarkably so. If current trend-lines continue, it may not be long before Baghdad is safer for Iraqi citizens than the Washington-Baltimore metroplex is for US citizens. Iraq's government is working, its economy is booming - and its military has driven the concentrations of terrorists and militia from every one of Iraq's major cities. And our troops are coming home. Where's the failure?
3
POPSWe're Winning The War On Terror quoted: This is why we fight. Primarily, of course, to protect ourselves from the immediate threat of terrorist carnage, but also because we know that extending the embrace of a civilization that liberates everyone makes us all safer. Every death is an unspeakable tragedy. It's right that each time a soldier is killed in action we ask why. Was it really worth it? The right response to the loss of brave souls such as Corporal Sarah Bryant, the first British woman to die in Afghanistan, is not an immediate call for retreat. It is, first of all, pride; a great, deep conviction that it is on such sacrifice that our own freedoms have always rested. Then, defiance. How foolish is the enemy that it might think our grief is really some prelude to their victory? Finally, confidence. We are prevailing in this struggle. We know it. And everywhere: in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and among Muslims around the world, the enemy knows it too.
6
POPSThe Bush Paradox Even the defiled NY Times publishes the fact that the surge decision was correct and, against all odds, produced victory. No other man could have had the courage and foresight to stay the course and pick the right military leaders to defeat the enemy and bring safety and prosperity to a suffering people. God bless George W. Bush.
3
POPSSupport the Stop-loss Compensation Act Of all the abuses borne by our servicemembers since the beginning of our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, excessive reliance on stop-loss is one of the most egregious. Involuntary service negates the promise of our all-volunteer military. By forcing tens of thousands of troops to stay in the military, we have broken the contract that our servicemembers willingly entered into with their country. VFA applauds Rep. Sutton's efforts to mitigate the burdens placed on our troops and their families by stop-loss orders. We encourage her colleagues in Congress to support this legislation.
3
POPSSecret plan to keep Iraq under US control
Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors America currently has 151,000 troops in Iraq and, even after projected withdrawals next month, troop levels will stand at more than 142,000 – 10 000 more than when the military "surge" began in January 2007. Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government. The precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now. The leaks are certain to generate an angry backlash in Iraq. "It is a terrible breach of our sovereignty," said one Iraqi politician, adding that if the security deal was signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad which will be seen as an American pawn.
2
Pops
Newest Clips
Latest Comments
Most Pops
Print
Save
Turn on live update