| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| US spies, not 'surge', reduced Iraq violence: book |
| 2008-09-05 |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #9 The author is in the sack for the CIA. WHo utterly failed the nation. Its the tactics of goping into the hoods and STAYING THERE , and putting enough troops in to do this in a wide area. Thats what won it, and that's the surge. CIA is a broken and hesitant agency anymore, bug-ridden and riddled with political hacks and analysts who have no idea of operational art or action. NRO, NSA and DIA produce better product and analysts. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-09-05 19:17 |
| #8 Another Woodward book, another bout of useless speculation as to whether the MSM puts it on the fiction or non-fiction bestseller lists. |
| Posted by: Halliburton - Asymmetrical Reply Division 2008-09-05 18:17 |
| #7 I haven't read anything Woodward's written since Wired, when he seemed so amazed that Belushi used drugs. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2008-09-05 12:26 |
| #6 Bob Woodward? I fear I read no further. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-09-05 12:20 |
| #5 So Woodward says that we've been spying on Maliki? Either it's a lie, or it's true. If it's a lie, then this is technical sedition. If it's the truth, then it's exposing an active covert operation in a warzone. Either way, in a rational world, Woodward would be brought up on criminal charges and do hard federal time. Some days, I wish the Comedian hadn't been fictional. Although I admit that Bernstein didn't really make as obnoxious over the long-term as his asshole partner has. |
| Posted by: Mitch H. 2008-09-05 11:57 |
| #4 Were you trying to make money when you picked your nym? |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-09-05 11:33 |
| #3 People say dumb things when they are trying to make money... Even if its wrong... |
| Posted by: Full Bosomed1072 2008-09-05 11:24 |
| #2 Paterius was behind a lot of that. IT was his use of spies and show of strength combined with Al Queda abuses that made the Anbar Awakening possible. It was the increase of troop strength that made Sadr's decision to rein in his troops rather than see them slaughtered. Some will say anything to take away victory. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-09-05 11:20 |
| #1 Overall, he writes that four factors combined to reduce the violence: the covert operations; the influx of troops; the decision by militant cleric Muqtada al-Sadr to rein in his powerful Mahdi Army; and the so-called Anbar Awakening, in which tens of thousands of Sunnis turned against al-Qaeda. Is it just me, but isn't it a 'surge' when you get an 'influx' of troops? And would there have been an Awakening if the locals had seen an 'exit' of troops? [rhetorical questions]. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-09-05 11:04 |