When Will Iraq's Tet Offensive Begin?

Published on April 8, 2008 By Artysim In Politics

Is the Surge really working?

Although I am an unabashed liberal, I would like to ask the fine folks here to consider this article without political bias. I could care less whether a republican or democratic president was responsible for giving the order to go into Iraq. History does have a habit of repeating itself- so with that in mind I'm going to go ahead and ask if the surge is really working, considering previous occupations and how they ended... first, a little history.

Back in january 1968, the North Vietnamese launched a massive offensive in concert with their irregular elements against South Vietnam and major U.S bases in country. Militarily, this offensive was a complete defeat for the north and a victory for the U.S and South Vietnamese. Politically it was a massive victory for the north (albeit unintentional by their own admission) and was a major turning point in the war- many Americans realized that the war would not end soon and the boys definitely would not be home by Christmas.

While the northern leadership was actually quite dismayed by their failure (the true goal was to spur a mass uprising in the south that would overthrow the government of the day) It also shocked the Americans, both civillian and military. While strategic planners and intel knew beforehand that the north was planning something big, they did not believe that the north could field such a large scale operation. On the tactical level execution was poor, many objectives were based on outdated or sketchy intel and small unit actions were poorly co-ordinated, further contributing to the failure of northern forces. At the end of the day though, while they failed in their objectives they still succeeded in mounting attacks against major U.S bases and headquarters and even succeeded in getting a 19 man sapper team onto the grounds of the U.S embassy in Saigon.

This failed action sent the message that the other team was still fully capable of playing ball and was far from beaten. U.S forces remained in country several more years until they withdrew with the understanding that they would continue to offer air support, intel and advisors. We all know how that went.

So, what does this have to do with Iraq? For the last year (well almost) we have been hearing about how stability is slowly returning to Iraq. Attacks are down, sectarian violence is down, and even many Sunni groups are now working in tandem with Americans and the Iraqi Gov to kick out AQ. And good on' em.

By all appearances, until last week the surge has had the appearance of working quite well. What isn't talked about too openly though is that the drop in violence has been largely due to many insurgents agreeing not to attack coalition forces. This does not mean that they have turned in their rifles or had a change of heart.

The last couple of weeks have brought to light just how illusory these "gains" really are. When Maliki decided to go into Basra and crack down on some of Sadr's boys, all bets were off... the Green Zone was shelled for several days, resulting in several casualties. Clashes broke out in several cities, and 11 U.S service personnel have been killed since sunday.

Despite U.S and U.K air support, the government attempt to take Basra was an utter failure. Maliki headed there to personally oversee operations but had to be rescued by U.S airlift when militia fighters got too close to his headquarters. That, and an estimated 1000 members of the Iraqi army and police have either defected to the militia they were supposed to stamp out, or simply refused to fight. Now that more than a week has passed, Sadr's militia is stronger than before the failed government attempt to take Basra. Public sentiment, while polarized, is siding more with Sadr as he is being seen as a fighter of the occupation, as opposed to the government who is seen as more of a puppet of the Americans.

With the fact that there remain tens of thousands of well armed, experienced combatants in Iraq who do not share any love for the U.S, I cannot help but wonder when the Iraqi version of Tet will come. The last few weeks should serve as a clear warning sign that the other team is still on the playing field, and they can still play ball. Just because some of the factions have temporarily reigned in their actions, does not mean that they are toothless. If anything, the surge has been a perfect opportunity for many of these groups to re-group and re-arm. It is because of this that I would like to say I do not think the Surge is actually working. It has the appearance of working on the outside, but deep down the U.S will never be able to leave Iraq victoriously.

Comments (Page 3)

cactoblasta

on Apr 14, 2008

You dont do your cause any good with statements like that. That will only demonstrate how far left you are. MSNBC is the farthest left of the TV news channels.

On any objective scale all US media outlets except PBS lean at least a little to the right or are so unprofessional that they cannot be considered to be on a political scale at all - the argument for American understanding of irony, Fox News, fits into that last category.

Speaking of objective research, there's lots of studies about the leanings of media organisations in the US. Hermann's, which was released initially in the late 1980s, is one of my favourites if only for the quality of the writing, but I doubt much has changed since then. Do you have a study that you're basing your right/left argument on, or is it just your own presumably exhaustive research?

Dr Guy

on Apr 14, 2008

On any objective scale all US media outlets except PBS lean at least a little to the right or are so unprofessional that they cannot be considered to be on a political scale at all

That is an oxymoron since none exists. However, I was speaking from the american perspective. One cannot say, objectively, whether the stations lean left or right since whatever bias you have will color your interpretation. However, one can objectively rank the stations on the bias they put in the news (from closes to your own to farthest away - even if the farthest away is still on your side of the spectrum). By anyone's rankings, MSNBC is clearly the furthest from the right, whether that makes it left or not is subjective.

Do you have a study that you're basing your right/left argument on, or is it just your own presumably exhaustive research?

Yes. It was a study done just last year. I beleive that it was blogged about here, but I do not recall who or when it was done (I know I commented on it). If I get some time, I will dig it up for you.

ParaTed2k

on Apr 14, 2008

Only if "objective" means, you've never once read a US paper or watched a US news cast.

The lefty press cheers on communists leaders like Castro and Chavez. The lefty press allowed their own reporters and tech staffs to be tortured by Hussein, and covered for him. The lefty press put McCain in the nomination for the Republican party and will do all they can to see Obama in the White House.

The lefty press NEVER reports the number of girls harmed by botched abortions in Planned Parenthood "clinics", but will spend weeks digging up dirt on a local hospital. The lefty press continues to report that idiot Jimmy Carter's verbal vomit, and will never admit that Carter never met an anti US terrorist he didn't like.

The lefty press has become the intelligence department of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. They question every word Prs. Bush says, but fall over themselves trying to trumpet anything an Al Qaeda leader spews.

Don't sit there and tell me that the "objective" will see the U.S. press as "slightly right". They aren't. They don't care to be, and they consider the right to be beneath them.

Artysim

on Apr 15, 2008

The lefty press has become the intelligence department of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. They question every word Prs. Bush says, but fall over themselves trying to trumpet anything an Al Qaeda leader spews.

Ahhh yes, the great and expansive evil left wing media machine, funded directly by the shadow politburo that is still secretely operating in the basement of the Kremlin. I knew it was a vast left wing conspiracy! Never mind that papers like the Washington Post were founded by an ultra-conservative religious nutjob with the intent of being "conservative" news. Or you know, that Rupert Murdoch owns a bajillion different media outlets that all parrot the party line. Or, you know, talk radio which is dominated by like 90 % conservative pundits. Or you know, that far left organization called CNN that devotes a primetime slot to a conservative pundit (Glenn Beck) who pretty much accused Obama of being a terrorist (he framed it in a question, same end effect though) but has no liberal pundit to balance it out.

In my eyes the entire press has failed in their job. There should be no such thing as "conservative" news or "liberal" news. And all the pundits should be taken out and shot if you ask me. Or at least punched in the stomach real good. The press needs to get back to investigating and reporting, not the role of talking-heads that tell us what they think of the world!

Dr Guy

on Apr 15, 2008

Never mind that papers like the Washington Post were founded by an ultra-conservative religious nutjob with the intent of being "conservative" news.

Arty, Arty, Arty....Please get your facts right. It was the Washington TIMES that was founded by the moonies! The Washington PEST is solid core left (by American standards) and proud of it. Dont beleive me? Just ask them.

Paladin77

on Apr 15, 2008

Or you know, that Rupert Murdoch owns a bajillion different media outlets that all parrot the party line. Or,

Yup, that same person who held a fundraiser for which conservative candidate? Oh, I remember now Senator Hillary Clinton, yeah she is a right wing nut job if ever YOU saw one.

Or, you know, talk radio which is dominated by like 90 % conservative pundits.

Well in the market place you make money by providing what the people want. Air America made so much money spewing hate that they are going to take over the radio. No, wait, they went bankrupt cause no one would listen to them and could not get ad money to fund their hate speech. People can’t get a view that they agree with on TV so they get it on the radio, as you pointed out 90% of the successful talk shows are conservative, that would lead me to believe that liberals are in the minority with 10%, well less than that because there are the do it your self shows, and the auto mechanic shows, the farm and gardening shows that also fall into that same 10%.

Through your own admission liberals are not part of the main stream of America. Thanks for pointing that out.

Or you know, that far left organization called CNN that devotes a primetime slot to a conservative pundit (Glenn Beck) who pretty much accused Obama of being a terrorist (he framed it in a question, same end effect though) but has no liberal pundit to balance it out.

Mr. Beck, if that is his real name, was given the slot because CNN’s ratings had sagged so deeply they needed a counter balance to the 23 hours a day of liberal views. Just like before Fox news came on the seen Lou Dobbs was kicked off of CNN because he was too conservative and they had the monopoly in the 24 hour news business. When Fox news came on the scene they quickly brought him back to get viewers. The proof is that once there is a conservative alternative to the liberal views, liberals lose. Fox is not conservative if you actually watch the programs you will see they are right down the middle. But to a liberal being in the center is so far right that it must be the extreme far right from a liberal point of view.

ABC, CBS, NBC were all varying degrees of left then CNN showed up and was just left of center and provided 24 hours of news. Then over time CNN went more to the left to the point that they ceased to be a news organization and became a propaganda network. MSMBC fought for the position of being even more far left. Fox showed up and said we are not going to colour the news left or right but tell it as it is and let the viewer decide what is good or bad. Look at their prime time line up; Special report with Britt Hume, former ABC anchor man, his one hour show give 40 minutes of news and 20 minutes of commentary with pundits from all sides to argue the points. No conclusions are made by Mr. Hume and we are left to choose who is right or wrong. Followed by flashy news by an idiot that looks good (empty suit) can’t remember his name he turns me off. Followed by Bill O’reilly, former CBS news man, and his no spin zone which again only points out the facts and he does have comments as to what he believes is right or wrong but he does not favor any political side. If the left is wrong on that topic he points it out the same with the right. then you have Gretta who came from the legal channel or something like that to CNN and then to FOX. These are not right wing zealots that push their ideology as fact. Contrast that with the other news organizations and you have the opposite. Fox only has 2 million viewers less than the 30 million of CNN yet they still have the highest rated shows on cable. What does that tell you?

Yes, the fascist way is always the best. Why let us poor dumb people see the news for what it is and say this is wrong we should do something about it. All the colour commentary that leans politically one side or the other is all from the left leaning press that wants us to see things their way. Fox had been doing exactly as you desire and you want them taken off the air and shot because it disagrees with you. That sounds very fair if your goal is to take away all rights and put a central government in charge of our lives.

Leauki

on Apr 16, 2008

I think the implied ending to that statement was "from the Americans and their puppet Iraqi government", rather than implying some sort of time travel-like 'then is now' adventure.

In that case Germany should be given back to the Nazis first. Fair is fair.

Germany, like Japan, has now been living under the Americans and their pupper German government for 60 years!

Dr Guy

on Apr 16, 2008

Germany, like Japan, has now been living under the Americans and their pupper German government for 60 years!

That's what the Bader Meinhof gang contended.

Paladin77

on Apr 16, 2008

That's what the Bader Meinhof gang contended.

Yeah, what ever happened to them anyway?

The_Politico

on Apr 17, 2008

The lefty press cheers on communists leaders like Castro and Chavez.

You mean the point out parts of things that Repubs would rather ignore.

The_Politico

on Apr 17, 2008

hey went bankrupt cause no one would listen to them and could not get ad money to fund their hate speech.

While completely ignoring the fact that the rightwing corporations have so effectively locked up a monopoly its virtually impossible to launch ANY new competing syndicate regardless of the type.

In full truth part of the problem is the audience. Democrats are willing to listen to both sides of the issue, thus even faux gets an audience. Republicans are the ones incapable of hearing anything other than what they want to hear.

Dr Guy

on Apr 17, 2008

In full truth part of the problem is the audience. Democrats are willing to listen to both sides of the issue, thus even faux gets an audience. Republicans are the ones incapable of hearing anything other than what they want to hear.

This is why you slander republicans without answering any of their questions? You are a perfect example of how it is just the other way around.

The_Politico

on Apr 17, 2008

This is why you slander republicans without answering any of their questions?

I haven't slandered anyone, but you have never seen reason to let facts interfere with your delusions.

Dr Guy

on Apr 17, 2008

I haven't slandered anyone, but you have never seen reason to let facts interfere with your delusions.

Probably not, but the average fifteen year old is much more capable of independent thought than the average conservative.

Liar

The_Politico

on Apr 17, 2008

Prove otherwise. Put up or shut up Dr. Iwishiwasaguy

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!