JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
Jim Yanik wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:

Armchair Monday morning quarterbacking.

Nope. I wrote the letter nearly three years ago, after
frustration upon frustration in trying to get a response via my
congressional delegate and senators.

you know,after Pearl Harbor and the beginning of WW2 in
Europe,things went bad for a few years,then generals were
changed,and things turned around. And that is what has happened
here in Iraq.

It's been happened because of the surge. That theater-wide
positive turnaround, due to the increase in troops, is ample
proof that what I wrote was right. And in my opinion, we still
have far fewer boots on the ground than we should have.

not just because of more troops,but also the manner in which they
are deployed,and how they act towards the Iraqi people.

And they couldn't be deployed in the new tactical strategy unless
there had been the increase of troops, ie The Surge. I have no idea
what you mean by 'how they act toward the Iraqi people'.

Petraeus stationed the US surge troops AMONG the Iraqis,in their
cities,not at a heavily guarded "forward" base.

So what? The issue is that there was never the number of troops to
take and hold territory. The Surge changed that. Prior to the surge,
our troops were holed up in regional compounds, now they've expanded
their presence and make far-flung sweeping patrols.

The US troops are
instructed to treat the Iraqis with respect,not treat them ALL as
enemies or "ragheads".

That was the case from day one. That wasn't a Surge induced doctrine.

They got to KNOW the Iraqis,on a daily
basis.That is what convinced the Iraqis that the US troops were the
lesser of 2 evils,and that they were far better off helping the US
troops against Al-Qaida.

I disagree. The troops were getting to know the Iraqis in their
patrol areas since day one. That had nothing to do with the Iraqi
turnaround. It was the belief that they were now secure because of
the Surge that did it. --
Dave
www.davebbq.com


I'm not taking sides here one way or the other, but you capitalized
the word "surge", which I think means you've been indoctrinated to
the point where you think it's a proper noun.

Not at all. I'm just trying to make it distinctive. I would prefer to call
the surge by what it is, additional troop deployments. I haven't been
brainwashed yet :-0

Luckily, the moron on
the White House was instructed to stop saying "this young democracy"
before he wore out the phrase.

Yeah, the tread was begining to wear out on that wheel.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com