Tell me why we should wait until September

[frogcycle]

The "surge" failed. It was a non-starter to begin with.

http://dwb.newsobserver.com/24hour/world/story/3617215p-12917922c.html

BAGHDAD (AP) Three months into Baghdad's security crackdown, sectarian violence is back on the rise - this time, in a mixed neighborhood that had previously been relatively calm while Sunni-Shiite strife tore apart other parts of the Iraqi capital.

Baiyaa, a middle-class district in western Baghdad, has started to display the fears and flight that have already carved up much of the city, which has become a patchwork of separate Sunni and Shiite enclaves.

Snipers have begun appearing in parts of Baiyaa. Many stores have closed, and both Shiite and Sunni families have fled the area in recent weeks. Last Sunday, a car bomb devastated a food market, killing 30 people.

[Monkeyman]

1. So That Bush can ask to wait to Jan and so on and so on

[babylonsister]

2. Simple answer - we shouldn't. nt

[uppityperson]

3. Because the last of the Surgites are just getting there now.

It hasn't had a chance to work because all the people going to surge haven't gotten there yet. Got it? :sarcasm:

I am having difficulty being coherent, too much Big Thread reading.

[whistle]

4. So Dick Cheney can get the war going with Iran and then Bush can take full credit for

...causing WW III.

[calteacherguy]

5. It's politically unfeasible.

Once September comes, if conditions have not improved, the escalation will have failed. There is no military solution. The only hope is that enough pressure will be put on the government of Iraq that there will movement politically.

If Dems were to cut of funding now and more chaos ensued, Democrats would be blamed. They will say not all the troops are even there yet, it hasn't had time to work.

I'm not sure by "wait" if you mean Democrats or the administration. If you mean Democrats, we have no choice, really.

[frogcycle]

10. By "we" I meant America. Hell, the world!

it was rhetorical. I know all the posturing on both sides. All the political realities. But it has fucking been demonstrated a failure, the occupation is a disaster; the Iraqis want us gone, and we are going to wait through four months of "stay the course" at in all liklihood more than 100 US fatalities/month, plus ten times that maimed, before starting any change. Unless that change is shorter by four months than it would be if started now, thats a lot of human sacrifices on the alter of gwb's ego.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

6. Does anyone expect General Petraeus to admit failure?

In September, he will be spinning the "surge" to have worked, selectively using whatever statistics the White House Chimpfluffers approve of. Even if things are far worse by September, you'll never hear that admission. Therefore, the only thing we know for certain is that in September, Bush will be advocating that we stay in Iraq longer and that we give the surge another 6 months.

[jerryme1]

9. Exactly. General Petraeus: the next Colin Powell, George Tenet....

[spartan61]

11. You have posted exactly what I have been wondering.

How will we ever know for sure that Petraeus will be telling the truth. Statistics can be manipulated to prove almost anything. I don't believe for a moment that we will be told the surge is failing. No matter what is really happening, we will be told that the surge is working. Look at how often we have been told how great things are in Iraq over the past four years when it has all been untrue.

[porphyrian]

7. "Death...death....death to all those who oppose us!"

It's the green sphere's fault.

[rurallib]

8. Iraqi parliament needs a vacation, Bush needs a vacation

So that's like 4 months, right? That makes it September, maybe October. First things first.