IT HAS BEEN A LONG TIME

Hello everyone,

It has been a while since I have made a post on the Worldview blog. I have been busy posting things to the Preaching Today Blog. You can check it out at this link:
www.preachtoday.blogspot.com


There has been a lot of talk recently about how the surge in Iraq has been successful. Most people have not debated this claim but a few voices have offered a diffrent opinion.

Slate Magazine published the following article:

Defining Victory Downward
No, the surge is not a success.


Why was President Bush's decision a year ago to send another 30,000 troops to Iraq called the "surge"? I don't know who invented this label, but the word surge evokes images of the sea: a wave that sweeps in, and then sweeps back out again. The second part was crucial. What made the surge different from your ordinary troop deployment was that it was temporary. In fact, the surge was presented as part of a larger plan for troop withdrawal. It was also, implicitly, part of a deal between Bush and the majority of Americans who want out. The deal was: Just let me have a few more soldiers to get Baghdad under control, and then everybody, or almost everybody, can pack up and come home.
In other words: You have to increase the troops in order to reduce them. This is so perverse on its face that it begins to sound zenlike and brilliant, like something out of Sun Tzu's The Art of War. And in Gen. David Petraeus, the administration conjured up its own Sun Tzu, a brilliant military strategist.
It is now widely considered beyond dispute that Bush has won his gamble. The surge is a terrific success.


But we needn't quarrel about all this, or deny the reality of the good news, to say that the surge has not worked yet. The test is simple, and built into the concept of a surge:

Has it allowed us to reduce troop levels to below where they were when it started? The answer is no.
In fact, President Bush laid down the standard of success when he announced the surge more than a year ago: "If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home." At the time, there were about 130,000 American soldiers in Iraq. Bush proposed to add up to 20,000 more troops. Although Bush never made any official promises about a timetable, the surge was generally described as lasting six to eight months.
By last summer, the surge had actually added closer to 30,000 troops, making the total American troop count about 160,000. Today, there are still more than 150,000 American troops in Iraq. The official plan has been to get that number back down to 130,000 by July and then to keep going so that there would be about 100,000 American troops in Iraq by the time Bush leaves office. Lately, though, Gen. Petraeus has come up with another zenlike idea: He calls it a "pause." And the administration has signed on, meaning that the total number of American troops in Iraq will remain at 130,000 for an undetermined period.


To read the rest of the article follow this link:

Surge

The BBC recently published the article. " Toxic world fallout from Iraq invasion"

It simply asks one simply question, was it worth it?


The war in Iraq was supposed to be over long before now.

It was not supposed to provoke a conflict between Sunni and Shia or stir up an al-Qaeda hornet's nest.

Nor was it supposed to alienate much of the rest of the world from US foreign policy, which post 9/11 was on the crest of a wave of sympathy.

It was intended, its proponents argued, to remove a threat to world peace and to plant the flag of freedom in a Middle East democratic desert.

The critics countered that the threat was an illusion, that the US was invading illegally and sought control over the region and Iraq's oil.


To read the rest follow this link:

Iraq


My personal belief is that the surge may appear to be successful for a time but what happens when we reduce troop levels? I believe violence will increase maybe even to the point of a civil war.

Consider some recent news reports:

Iraq road bomb 'kills 16 people'

US troops clash with Iraq militia

Iraq attack kills three US troops

Iraq Violence Surges Again

UN: Drop in Iraq Violence May Not Last


Now if those stories are not bad enough consider the cost of the war:


Studies: Iraq Costs US $12B Per Month
Studies: Iraq War Will Cost $12 Billion Per Month in 2008, Tripling Rate of War's Early Years

You can read the article at this link:
Cost


So you tell me, is the surge working?

If this is how we define sometihng as working I would hate to see how we define sometihng that is broken.