Citing a "Phenomenal" drop in the Violence in Iraq, a Financial times article says;"When you understand you are dealing with the complexity of a counter-insurgency operation which can take years to resolve, to have this dramatic a success in a short period of time, it's unprecedented", he said.LINKOn this wonderful day for giving thanks, I am thankful for moron left-wingers on 5th grade level blogs who made idiotic predictions.
Higher troops levels are a major contributor to the success of operations in Iraq, especially in cities like Fallujah, a U.S. commander of troops in the western city said during a news conference today. Building on the successes of the combat teams before his, Marine Col. Richard Simcock, commander of Regimental Combat Team 6, said the biggest advantage he has over his predecessors is the number of troops available to secure and stabilize the city. "We can do more because we have more," Simcock said. "Troop levels have allowed us to go places our predecessors couldn't." He told reporters that his 6,000 troops have been able to break the "whack-a-mole" cycle of securing an area and then moving on only to have the enemy to come back in afterward. "We can go into a particular area with a large force, establish security and set conditions for Iraqi security forces to come in behind us to transition into securing the area," Simcock said. He said his troops, with coalition and Iraqi forces,
The Washington Times reports that in raids against terrorists forces (conducted on March 3rd), American and Iraqi soldiers killed six and captured another 41 in their ongoing effort to destroy the multiple warring groups terrorizing Iraq.
In response to this success both the Iraqi government and some Iraqis themselves say the situation has improved since February when the US stepped up its security measures. Thanks to the success Iraqi officials are pushing back the nightly curfew from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. and individual Iraqis feel that several neighborhoods are now safer.
Staff Sgt. Brian Long sees progress but admits that it is “too early to tell if the surge is working.” Still, he said, “even coming to an agreement to not kill each other is a step in a positive direction; it has happened in some neighborhoods.”
The article concludes by noting that most Iraqis are adopting a wait and see attitude but that some see the U.S. forces as the only thing preventing complete cha
The House has rejected the President's call for a troop surge of 20,00 for Iraq by a vote of 246 to 182. By denouncing his appeal, many Democrats see this action as a way to shake some sense into the Commander -in-Chief, as they plan a strategy to end the war. A vote follows in the Senate, but many question: Is this all sizzle and no steak--given without limiting funding for the war effort, nothing is likely change. As chief executive, the president is resolute on his decision to crush Iraqi insurgent/terrorists. How will this pan out? Waiting to see.Cutting funds for the war is a two edged sword for the Dems given how this move is interpreted by hawks who think this war cannot be won diplomatically, the GOP thinks using the power of the purse, shows no support for the troops, some make a comparison to old Rome-Nero fiddles while Rome burns-- a whole lot of talk --at least 400 members of the House spoke on the floor. But the Democrats have a mandate expressed in the 2006 elections--fi
Today the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, now controlled by Democrats, voted 12 - 9 against President Bush’s plan to send 21,500 more troops to fight in Iraq. They said that this plan is not in the best interest of the American people; however, the Bush administration is planning on moving forward with the plan anyways.
The only Republican to vote against the troop surge was Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, who said this war “is a pingpong game with American lives,” and that “there is no strategy.” Dick Cheney, on the other hand, has said that the President has made his decision and the Bush administration is going to move forward with its plan.
The White House and Democrats are continuing to butt heads, as you have the Democrats trying everything they can to change the strategy in Iraq and President Bush who is trying to exercise his right as commander in chief. So while there are Americans dying everyday in Iraq we have politicians who are doing
[Cross-posted at The Right’s Field]
Robert Novak, writing in the Washington Post, says that presumed GOP nominee Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) is increasingly finding himself alone on the troop surge in Iraq. It is a plan that former North Carolina Democratic Senator John Edwards labeled the “McCain Doctrine.”
Both McCain and Edwards are either running or considering a run for the presidency in 2008. Announced and potential candidates — Edwards, Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois), Senator Hillary Clinton (D-New York), Governor Bill Richardson (D-New Mexico), Governor Tom Vilsack (D-Iowa), Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), and Senator Joe Biden (D-Delaware) — have all publicly opposed McCain’s plan.
As the architect of the surge, McCain, naturally, supports an increase in U.S. forces in Iraq. It is a position that Dick Bennett, president of the American Research Group, says “appears to be hurting him.”
Governor Mitt Romney (R-Massa
