Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Both Decrease And Increase In Troop Deaths Prove The Surge Is Success

Posted by Ali Frick, Think Progress at 6:49 AM on May 6, 2008.


For supporters of the war, up is down, down is up, and 2+2=5.
warispeace
war is peace

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

Council on Foreign Relations Senior Fellow Max Boot is one of the most vocal supporters of a neocon foreign policy. He says those who favor withdrawal from Iraq engage in wishful thinking and claims there is copious evidence that Iran is training al Qaeda. He said former CENTCOM commander Adm. William Fallon's hesitation to bomb Iran embolden[ed] the mullahs, and claimed that the recently-revealed Pentagon propaganda program is simply part and parcel of the daily grind of Washington journalism.

He has also been a vociferous defender of the Iraq troop surge. Today, in an online debate on the surge, Boot points to the overall decrease in troop deaths as evidence of its success:

I could cite statistics to show how the “surge”—not only an increase in the number of U.S. troops in Iraq but also a change in their strategy to emphasis classic counterinsurgency—has been paying off: Civilian deaths were down more than 80 percent and U.S. deaths down more than 60 percent between December 2006 and March 2008.

Just two days ago, however, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Boot argued that the recent increase in U.S. troop casualties showed the surge was working. Acknowledging that April was the deadliest month for U.S. troops in Iraq since August (Boot says 52 soldiers died; in fact 54 did), Boot says the U.S. is approaching “the enemy’s defeat“:

More important, casualties cannot be looked at in a vacuum. A spike in casualties could be a sign that the enemy is gaining strength. Or it could be a sign that tough combat is under way that will lead to the enemy’s defeat and the creation of a more peaceful environment in the future. The latter was certainly the case with the casualty spike during the summer of 2007. … Unfortunate as the latest deaths are, they are in all likelihood a sign of things getting worse before they get better.

The right wing won’t let anything — even dozens of troop deaths — stop them from cheerleading for the Iraq war. The New York Daily News’ Michael Yon picks up Boot’s talking points, answering the question whether the increase in deaths shows that the surge’s progress has been lost:

[H]ere’s my short answer: no. We are taking more casualties now, just as we did in the first part of 2007, because we have taken up the next crucial challenge of this war: confronting the Shia militias. … That means, for the next few months, expect more blood, casualties and grim images of war. This may lead to a shift in the political debate inside the United States and more calls for rapid withdrawal. But on the ground in Iraq, it’s a sign of progress.

In other words: Heads I win, tails you lose.

Digg!

Tagged as: iraq, surge, max boot


Report: Obama Prepared to Talk to Hamas
Barack Obama is reportedly planning to ditch President Bush's strategy of isolating Hamas, and will instead move to open contacts with the group.
Post by Faiz Shakir. January 8, 2009.
Obama Can Learn from Bush: 'We Tried' Ain't Enough
We will need to remind Obama again and again that for those voters concerned about immigration, 'almost' just ain't gonna cut it come 2012.
Post by Paco Fabian. January 8, 2009.
Rachel Maddow on 'Daily Show': 'Insulted,' 'Embarrassed' By Bush
Jon Stewart and Maddow talk Bush, Obama, Bill Clinton, MSNBC and the Munsters.
Post by Danny Shea. January 8, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
What do you expect...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on May 6, 2008 7:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... from a man who believes Iran is training Al Queda.

Just another charlatan who claims to know something about the middle east who doesn't even know the difference between Shiite and Sunni.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Up is down
Posted by: jebpgh on May 6, 2008 8:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lewis Carrol or George Orwell could not have crafted the "dialogue" on the Iraq war better than these folks. As someone said, being a pro-war pundit means never having to say you are sorry. Sadly, the MSM just rolls along and keeps giving these folks a forum without any serious questioning of their consistent failure to accurately assess the reality on the ground. Maybe someone will give me a chance to do commentary on brain surgery...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's obvious the surge is working
Posted by: warriornation on May 6, 2008 9:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We just don't see it yet. We might not see it for the next 10, 20, 30, 100 years, or eternity, but Bush and Betrayus said it was working so it must be. This violence is just a "side effect" of "success". Much has change under the Bush Administration, mostly meaning of words. Success is a word that can mean anything. Progress is a word that can mean anything. Rationale is no longer a word. Irrationality is now a lifestyle...Feel free to post more of these words

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Troops could have died anywhere!
Posted by: cwilsondrum on May 6, 2008 10:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That is the next talking point they will use, as in " there will always be a conflict somewhere, and US troops will be involved,so they could easily have died somewhere else" as in "I DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT YOUR SON OR DAUGHTER,I AM ALWAYS RIGHT,GOT IT?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What a Neo-CON Job!
Posted by: Quannah on May 8, 2008 9:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Okay... so, the drop in deaths, both military and civilian since last August, is proof the "surge" is working. And the increase in troop deaths last month is proof the "surge" is working - because the fighting is heavy and we are beating the "enemy," thus the larger casualty numbers.

Okay.

So, then, we have to leave our troops in Iraq to keep the "gains" the military have worked hard to achieve with the "surge." And then, when things aren't going so well, we have to leave the troops there to keep fighting the "bad-guys-du-jour" so that we can make the necessary gains to keep... uh... okay, I thought I had it. Wait a minute... okay... we have to leave the troops...

WTF???

Like Keith Olbermann said last night... The purpose for the war in Iraq is HAVE a war in Iraq.

Yeah... this makes a lot of sense.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]